ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Business Rates (Local Retention)

Luciana Berger: What plans he has to localise national non-domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.

David Burrowes: What the timetable is for the implementation of local retention of business rates.

Esther McVey: What the timetable is for the implementation of local retention of business rates.

Nadhim Zahawi: What the timetable is for the implementation of local retention of business rates.

Eric Pickles: The Government have published proposals to allow local retention of business rates and are seeking views by 24 October. The plans give councils a strong financial incentive to drive economic growth, as well as providing protections for places in need of additional support. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we intend to introduce business rates retention by April 2013.

Luciana Berger: There is significant concern in cities such as Liverpool that councils will lose money after the first year if they cannot adjust quickly enough to the changes. We have had reassurances from Ministers that councils will get that support in the first year, but will the Secretary of State guarantee that they will get that additional support in years 2, 3 and 4?

Eric Pickles: Had the provisions been in place over the past few years, Liverpool would have done particularly well out of the system. I am confident that the leadership of Liverpool will respond to this, because it puts Liverpool very much in the driving seat. My opinion is that Liverpool is an extremely good place to invest.

David Burrowes: Following the riots, the viability of high streets is a priority. For my local shops, the priority is reform of business rates, which they see as too high and lacking any real connection with local services and local decision makers. Can the Minister hasten the day when business rates are not an issue for his Department?

Eric Pickles: I certainly hope so. We recognise the burden of rates on small businesses. That is why we are doubling small business rate relief until the end of September 2012. Approximately a third of a million business rate payers, including small shopkeepers, will pay no rates at all for this period, and through the Localism Bill we are giving authorities powers to grant business rates discounts as they see fit.

Esther McVey: Businesses on Wirral are concerned that the retention of business rates might result in increased business rates. As the party of the small business, how are we going to protect those small engines of growth in these difficult times?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, and I can assure her that part of the consultation makes it clear that local authorities will have the ability to bring business rates down, but not to put them up.

Nadhim Zahawi: In my constituency, the local enterprise partnership is moving swiftly to create business growth across both Warwickshire and Coventry. Can the Secretary of State explain which mechanisms will allow LEPs to receive funding from business rates where they, working with the local authority or alone, have been responsible for economic growth in the area?

Eric Pickles: LEPs are a partnership between local authorities and business, and we will be encouraging, though we will not be prescribing, local authorities to pool the business rates. I know that a number of authorities around Greater Manchester, west Yorkshire and particularly London are actively considering pooling arrangements, which has the advantage that poorer areas can benefit from richer areas.

Michael Dugher: Barnsley council has estimated that, had the arrangements been in place last year, it would have seen a cut of more than £40 million last year. Does the Secretary of State think it is fair that poorer areas such as Barnsley may face pressures in delivering vital local public services, whereas wealthier areas may see their business rates receipts go through the roof?

Eric Pickles: If business rates go through the roof, they will be caught by the “disproportionate” rule and those sums will be taken away and distributed to poorer areas. This was designed to help councils such as Barnsley to retain local growth. The figures that I have seen—we received some figures from Barnsley during the recent settlement—did not appear to be entirely accurate. I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to get the best possible deal for Barnsley.

Barbara Keeley: Ministers—[ Interruption ]—have already made savage front-loaded cuts to council budgets, and now they want to top-slice the proceeds of business rate growth which they promised to local councils. Localising business rate growth should give local authorities an incentive to grow their business base and to create jobs. Will the Minister explain just how central Government’s top-slicing of business rate growth can provide that proper incentive? Is it not just another hit on local government finance?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady was clearly missed by Members on her side of the House, and indeed by those on ours, judging by that welcome.
	The only top-slicing that will take place is with regard to disproportionate gains, and I am pretty confident that Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster councils will see enormous increases in their rates. It is only right that we take that money away and see that it is distributed to other parts of the country, such as to Barnsley. I would have thought that she would support that.

Philip Hollobone: What incentives will there be to encourage local authorities to introduce special low business rates for green energy schemes?

Eric Pickles: The Localism Bill gives local authorities the discretion to do that, and my hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion which I am very confident a number of local authorities will take up.

High Streets (Planning)

Nick Smith: What steps his Department is taking to support high streets through the planning system.

Greg Clark: It is a devolved matter for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, but the Government are committed to the “town centre first” approach, which prefers to site new retail developments on the high street.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply. The new planning system framework calls for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Today, however, the Financial Times describes that phrase as “vaguely defined”. Will the Minister please take this opportunity to offer us a precise definition?

Greg Clark: It is the same definition that the previous Government and Governments before them applied. In fact, it is the classic definition. It is that development that takes place should not be at the expense of the interests of future generations—and that is defined economically, socially and environmentally.

Annette Brooke: The national planning policy framework has a welcome heading on promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, but the Minister was reluctant to make an addition to the Localism Bill concerning district centres and the important relevant hierarchy. What protection will he give to local neighbourhoods in the control of uses and in keeping local district shopping centres viable and vital?

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The Localism Bill, through neighbourhood planning, provides precisely such a basis to protect and, indeed, promote the future of district high streets, and we have already funded a number of areas, especially on high streets, in order to demonstrate their ability to capture the importance of regional high streets as well as of city centres.

Clive Betts: One of the most successful policies of the previous Conservative Government was their change to the planning guidance in the mid-’90s to ensure that priority was given to retail development in district or city centres or adjacent to them. Will the Minister now give an assurance that his proposed changes to the planning system will not water that down in any way and lead to an increase in stand-alone retail developments at the expense of our city and town centres?

Greg Clark: Yes.

Duncan Hames: Local communities, such as Chippenham, which choose to bring forward neighbourhood plans to facilitate redevelopment of
	their town centres may at the same time wish to restrict development of out-of-town and edge-of-town developments. Will neighbourhood planners have the authority to do that?

Greg Clark: Not only will they have the authority do so, but national policy will continue to be clear that retail developments should be in town centres first. That is crystal clear. It has been a very successful policy, which was first introduced by John Gummer when he was Secretary of State.

Jack Dromey: The Government have weakened protection for the high street in the national planning policy framework and rejected Labour’s call for local people to have the powers to plan their high streets, instead setting up a review and a retail summit. Does the Minister not recognise that what the high street needs is real action and real shops if we are to put the heart back into Britain’s hard-hit high streets?

Greg Clark: There is no dilution of the importance of town centres—of putting high streets first. In fact, over and above the planning system, we have relaxed parking standards so that people are able to drive and park in town centres—crucial, if they are to compete fairly with out-of-town centres. It repeals something that the previous Government introduced, sadly, which was blighting town centres. We reversed that.

Local Government Expenditure

Chris White: What steps his Department is taking to increase the efficiency of local government expenditure.

Bob Neill: The most important thing that the Government are doing is to return power to local authorities, because they are the people who are best placed to manage their resources in a way that meets local priorities, but specifically we are also supporting a raft of initiatives, such as the local government procurement programme.

Chris White: Recently, I met a local business, Colan Ltd, which was concerned about the way that local authorities procure goods and services. My constituent stated that local authorities have conflicting policies that are costing small companies such as his and in some cases are wasting public money. Will the Minister detail what work is being done to put in place more joined-up procurement across local authorities to support small businesses and ensure better use of public money?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The estimate is that some 20% could be saved on the £50 billion that local authorities spend on third parties, which is about £452 per family a year. To that end, the Government are working with the Local Government Group on behalf of the sector to identify short and longer term savings through the local productivity programme.

Kevin Brennan: On spending efficiency, my local housing association tells me that a lone parent with a spare room might be moved from
	housing association accommodation into private rented accommodation at a cost of £40 more under the new housing allowance. Is that an example of Government ideology or just of stupidity?

Bob Neill: I suspect that it is an example of inaccurate point scoring by the hon. Gentleman. We propose to give local authorities greater flexibility to meet the pressures that vary from place to place, rather than having a “one size fits all” straitjacket.

Transparency in Local Government

David Morris: What steps he is taking to improve transparency in local government.

Eric Pickles: Following public consultation earlier this year, I will shortly publish a code of recommended practice on transparency, setting out the principles and minimum standards that authorities should follow. That will ensure that councils can be held fully accountable to the people they serve.

David Morris: I think we can all agree that greater transparency is a friend of the democratic process, but it needs to be backed up by the empowerment of local residents. How will the Localism Bill drive through both transparency and greater democratic input?

Eric Pickles: The Localism Bill will indeed do that. Perhaps the most notable of its provisions is on the transparency of chief executive and senior salaries, which will have to go through a vote of the whole council. I am sure my hon. Friend understands that the Localism Bill is just part of the move towards transparency, which might better be described as ensuring that the public are kept informed.

Christopher Leslie: How transparent is it for Ministers to mask the real cuts in local government spending, such as the 16% cut for Nottingham city council, by dreaming up a statistical methodology that they call spending power and spinning it as a cut of just 8%? Why do they not just come clean about the cuts to the poorest areas in the country?

Eric Pickles: The body that thought up the spending power recommendation was the Local Government Association. Indeed, immediately before we announced it, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who is sat on the Labour Front Bench, endorsed it as the way we should go.

Enterprise Zones

Gavin Barwell: What plans he has to designate further enterprise zones.

Greg Clark: The Government have authorised 22 enterprise zones. We do not have plans to appoint any more. However, local enterprise partnerships can confer many of the advantages of enterprise zones without reference to central Government.

Gavin Barwell: I warmly welcome the £20 million that the Government are giving to the Mayor of London to support enterprise in Tottenham and Croydon in lieu of the designation of an enterprise zone. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that money will not be ring-fenced in any way? Will he meet a delegation from the Mayor’s office and Croydon council to discuss how else the Government can support the regeneration of Croydon in the light of what happened a month ago?

Greg Clark: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown in the community of Croydon in the wake of the riots. I am pleased to give him the assurance he seeks. The money will be unring-fenced and can be spent in the way that the people of Croydon think best. I am happy to meet such a delegation and I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting Croydon this week.

Joan Walley: When asked on BBC Radio Stoke why Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire was not selected as an enterprise zone in round 1, the Prime Minister, standing in Stoke-on-Trent, said:
	“Look, you’re not missing out on an enterprise zone, there will be an enterprise zone within the Stoke and Staffordshire Local Enterprise Partnership…and there will be one in this area and we’ll be advised by the Local Enterprise Partnership about where it should go.”
	The local enterprise partnership did advise, but we were not on the list. The map boundaries have not changed, and we are not part of the black country. What support will the Government now give to provide the enterprise investment that is needed, and will the Minister look again at our being included?

Greg Clark: I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment that that particular bid was not approved, and I would be very happy to meet her to explain why. However, there is some consolation in the fact that 90% of the black country’s enterprise zone is located in the Stoke and Staffordshire area, so there is some good news for the regeneration of her area.

Philip Davies: Can the Minister explain why part of Leeds should be an enterprise zone, but Bradford should not be and neither should Shipley? Indeed, can he explain why the whole country should not be an enterprise zone?

Greg Clark: Our ambition is to make the whole country an enterprise zone, but we go one step at a time. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that the decision was made by the local enterprise partnership. Unlike the previous round of enterprise zones, these ones were not picked in Whitehall. It was for the local enterprise partnership to designate where it thought the zone would work best.

David Lammy: There were two areas in London bidding for an enterprise zone prior to the riots: Tottenham and Croydon. Neither was granted enterprise zone status, but we were given a £20 million fund, for which I am grateful. However, it cannot be right that of Tottenham’s £10 million fund, £8 million should go to Tottenham Hotspur football club. I want to support the football club, but we will
	need far more regeneration in Tottenham if we are to see the kind of turnaround that we need in the poorest area in London. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can move forward?

Greg Clark: Having paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his leadership in Tottenham. He knows that the funding is available to Tottenham, as indeed it is to Croydon, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss how it is going to be spent.

Housing (Armed Forces Personnel)

David Davies: What plans his Department has in respect of the provision of housing for current and former members of the armed forces.

Grant Shapps: I am determined to ensure that those who have served or are serving in the military and armed forces get all the help and assistance possible with purchasing a home, and indeed in the Government’s affordable home programmes.

David Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I draw his attention to today’s Daily Mail, which highlights the rather shocking disparity in the housing accommodation offered to asylum seekers and to ex-members of the armed forces such as Private Alex Stringer, a triple amputee? Can the Minister assure us that the Government will bring forward schemes to prioritise housing for ex-servicemen and women? I believe that those who have recently fought for their country deserve better accommodation than those who have merely recently arrived here?

Grant Shapps: I say to my hon. and, I believe, gallant Friend that I entirely agree that it is essential that people who have been through armed service for this country should expect not just to have the disadvantages removed of having been away, such as perhaps a lost connection with the local area, but to be positively advantaged. I reassure him that that is exactly what our policy is intended to do. I can tell the House that just this weekend the very first recipients under the Government’s new Firstbuy scheme, in which we aim to ensure that service personnel benefit, were Mr and Mrs Ferguson of Telford, who have just moved into a four-bed home. He was a military policeman in the Army.

Licensing Areas

Graham Jones: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of selective licensing areas.

Andrew Stunell: The Housing Act 2004 requires local authorities to review the operation of selective licensing designations, and I certainly encourage them to do so. The Department has therefore not carried out an assessment itself of the effectiveness of those areas.

Graham Jones: The main problem with selective licensing, of course, is that it does not deal with stock condition, and we see many properties in selective licensing areas that are squalid. Can the Minister assure local communities that the Government will allow councils to include the most recent decent homes standard as a licence condition?

Andrew Stunell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been very active on this issue, and I know that he has a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government next week, at which I am sure he will make that point very strongly. Licensing conditions are matters for local authorities when they draw up their proposals.

Chris Williamson: With more than 1 million people living in substandard privately rented accommodation, and with massive front-loaded cuts to council budgets making it harder to tackle slum landlords, the Housing and Local Government Minister is clearly failing in his responsibilities. However, as Henry Ford once said:
	“Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”
	Will the Minister therefore adopt a more intelligent approach and abandon his laissez-faire attitude to regulation, which is creating a charter for slum landlords, by implementing the light-touch licensing system recommended by the Rugg review, adopted by Labour and welcomed by the National Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Lettings Agents?

Mr Speaker: Order. We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I think we have got the gist of it.

Andrew Stunell: I am happy to tell the House that 14 local authorities have accepted selective licensing areas—they have approved them and put them in place. That is the way to go. Local authorities should have the power and the responsibility to do that; they should not have the obligation to do it.

Empty Homes

Paul Maynard: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of empty homes.

Andrew Stunell: We have put in place powerful tools and incentives to support local communities in tackling empty homes. Particularly through the new homes bonus, communities will receive a direct financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use, and, of course, we are investing £100 million in tackling empty homes directly.

Paul Maynard: With more than 2,000 empty homes across the Blackpool and Wyre boroughs covering my constituency, does the Minister agree that tackling the relatively simple issue of filling empty homes in urban areas would reduce pressure on existing greenfield and green belt sites?

Andrew Stunell: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a scandal that we have in this country 300,000 homes that have been empty for longer than six months. In Blackpool and Wyre, the number of empty
	homes actually fell last year, and I want to give credit to the work of Blackpool council’s working group, which is working with other agencies to reduce that number. However, the investment that we will announce later this month will make a big difference to the figures nationally, and, I hope, in his area.

Alison Seabeck: I draw the House’s attention to my previous declarations of an indirect interest, which are a matter of record.
	Although I welcome all attempts to bring empty homes back into use—I saw some excellent examples during the recess of self-help schemes that do just that, including in Leeds and Hull—homelessness and rent have increased, as the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), admitted over the weekend. It was therefore surprising that his colleague, the Housing and Local Government Minister, wrote to me during the recess to seek my guidance and ideas from Labour’s policy thinking. That was from a man who pointed out that the shadow Minister was going to—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to come straight away to a question? That is what we are here for.

Alison Seabeck: I just thought that that would be an interesting point, Mr Speaker.
	Even with the net addition of empty homes being brought back into use, can the Minister tell us when he expects house building under his Government to exceed the 207,000 net additions achieved under Labour in the year before the recession hit?

Andrew Stunell: What I will say is that our investment in social housing, which we announced in the comprehensive spending review with the aim of delivering 150,000 homes, will in fact deliver 170,000 homes. That is a massive success which will increase the stock of social housing above and beyond Labour’s targets.

Mike Hancock: Will my hon. Friend put pressure on his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to see how they can bring back the many hundreds—if not thousands—of married quarters that stand empty around the country?

Andrew Stunell: I certainly hear with great sympathy what my hon. Friend says. We could perhaps have a discussion separately on how we can co-operate to deliver that result.

Caroline Lucas: Could the Minister tell us exactly how many empty homes management orders have been used? As the number is not likely to be very high, does that not suggest that we ought to reform how they are used?

Andrew Stunell: In the five years that empty homes management orders have been in force—they were introduced in 2006—only 46 have been made by local authorities across the country. That contrasts with the 300,000 empty homes, but they are the back-stop. I am
	happy to say that a lot of good work is done by many local authorities and other agencies to bring homes back into use. I intend to accelerate that process dramatically.

Bob Russell: I would like to encourage the Minister to pursue with vigour and enthusiasm the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). There are too many empty houses, and if we can get them occupied, there would be a lot less pressure on the open countryside.

Andrew Stunell: That is absolutely true. There has been a substantial failure of the market in bringing many of these homes back into use. That is exactly what our proposals, which are being announced later this month, are intended to address.

Planning Reform

Tristram Hunt: What discussions he has had with heritage bodies on his Department’s proposals to reform planning legislation.

Greg Clark: I and my officials have met representatives from English Heritage and other heritage bodies several times to improve the neighbourhood planning aspects of the Localism Bill. I am pleased to say that that has resulted in several helpful amendments that have enjoyed cross-party support.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Would he now like to take the opportunity to apologise to the 3.6 million members of the National Trust, whose concerns over the Government’s charter for sprawl were dismissed by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), as a left-wing smear campaign? Before the right hon. Gentleman explains whether Sir Simon Jenkins is a Tankie or a Trot, would he not agree that this is just further proof that the Conservatives cannot be trusted with the British countryside?

Greg Clark: I noticed that my hon. Friend described some of the leaders of some of these organisations as “left wing”. If it is untrue, it is a great insult; and if it is true, it is a great shame. The hon. Gentleman is a passionate defender of the historic environment, but so too are we on the Government Benches, and we are determined to preserve the character of middle England—but young England needs a roof over its head too.

Harriett Baldwin: In those discussions with heritage organisations, was the Minister able to clarify whether local plans will be able to designate grade I agricultural land with a specific value?

Greg Clark: Prime agricultural land will continue to be protected under the NPPF.

Caroline Flint: As has already been said, there has been considerable concern across the country that the Government are trying to steamroller through policy affecting future planning decisions. We were promised that the draft NPPF would be published
	alongside the Localism Bill. It did not happen. Then we were told that it would be published in Committee. That did not happen either. Then we were assured that it would definitely be published before the summer recess, but that did not happen either. Does the Minister recognise that by trying to bypass Parliament and dismiss legitimate concerns, he has undermined efforts to reach consensus on future planning policy?

Greg Clark: That is total nonsense. The commitment was to publish the NPPF by the end of July, and we did that. On not showing it to Parliament, I should say that I was looking at the record of the previous Government, and I noticed that there was a press release on 6 August 2009 about a new Government consultation on planning regional strategies. The idea, then, that the way we have done this is not in accordance with practice is for the birds. It is nonsense.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that that answer was not very helpful. I hoped that we could have a constructive discussion. It is in all our interests to have a planning system that can provide jobs, homes and growth in a sustainable way, and we want to work with the Government to put this situation right and reach consensus. In order to move forward, therefore, will he extend the consultation period on the NPPF, hold a debate on it in Government time and allow a vote on the final document, so that Parliament and the country can debate the reforms properly?

Greg Clark: We have put in place extensive consultation arrangements: we put out a call for evidence in January; we invited a practitioners group to publish its suggested draft a few months ago; and we have had the standard consultation period. The right hon. Lady will also know that I have committed to holding a debate here, and have asked the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee to look into the matter. It is very clear—I am completely open about this—that we want to have the fullest possible debate. I welcome her constructive approach. It is much needed because we have a crisis in housing and growth in this country that needs to be addressed by reforming the planning system in order to provide those things.

Alan Beith: Under the strategic housing land assessment process started by the previous Government, developers can nominate potential sites to go on a list in a way that does not seem to engage heritage organisations or heritage issues. Given the presumption in favour of development, does that mean that heritage issues cannot be brought to bear as reasons for refusing applications on sites on that list?

Greg Clark: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an assurance that the primacy of the local plan remains, and that national policy will continue to require rigorous protections to be in place for heritage assets.

Housing (Leeds)

Stuart Andrew: What assessment he has made of the five-year housing plan in the Leeds city council area.

Andrew Stunell: It is not for central Government to assess local plans. Our planning reforms make it clear that it is for local councils to assess their local needs and to plan to meet those needs in a way that reflects local priorities.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for that reply. What steps is the Department taking to provide guidance to support investment in brownfield and inner-city locations to generate much needed employment and reduce the damaging impact on the environment caused by developing greenfield sites? Will the Minister also look again at counting windfall sites in the five-year plan?

Andrew Stunell: It is certainly proper for local planning authorities to take into account windfall sites, but it is also necessary for every planning authority to ensure that it has sound evidence-based proposals for housing in particular, as well as for other development. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the situation in Leeds, and it is really for Leeds to develop its evidence base so that plans can go forward in a sensible and sustainable way.

Rachel Reeves: Kirkstall Forge in Leeds West is a brownfield site that has planning permission for 1,000 new homes. However, if they are going to get built, the Department for Transport needs to invest in a new railway station, which, as things currently stand, is on hold. Is there any joined-up thinking in this Government to ensure that such developments get the go-ahead and deliver much needed new homes?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Lady has made her point, so let me make mine, which is that it is very much for the planning authority approving a development to see what the associated infrastructure should be and how to create the investment force that can deliver it. The new homes bonus will deliver a substantial amount of additional money to Leeds, which can borrow against it in advance to develop the infrastructure that it needs.

Planning Reform

Simon Kirby: What steps he is taking to remove burdens in the planning system.

Greg Clark: We are simplifying the national planning policy framework, as some Members may have noticed. Through the Localism Bill, we are also abolishing the regional strategies, which have placed top-down burdens on every authority in the country.

Simon Kirby: I thank the Minister for cutting back at the thicket of rules and regulations that hamper development. Can he quantify the cost to local authorities of creating neighbourhood development plans?

Greg Clark: The cost of developing a neighbourhood plan will depend on how detailed the plan being executed is. However, we are providing support for every neighbourhood that wants to produce a neighbourhood plan. We have ensured that support will be available
	even before the Bill is introduced, so that every community that wants to have a neighbourhood plan can get on with it.

Bill Esterson: Is it not the case that the presumption in favour of development at the heart of the new planning framework puts every piece of green space at risk of development?

Greg Clark: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question because it enables me to say categorically: no, the answer is that it does not. What the presumption says is that when a local plan is absent or silent, there will be an assessment of whether a development should go ahead, the test of which will be whether it is sustainable, which is absolutely crucial. I have been campaigning for the environment for my entire political career, and I will continue to do so.

Gareth Johnson: Does the Minister agree that for high streets to survive and flourish through the planning system, as much control as possible should remain at a local level and away from regional inspectors?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is the situation that we have arrived at, because people quite rightly resist the imposition from above of targets and policies that take no account of local opinion or local needs. By stripping away those impositions from above, we will have plans that represent the views and aspirations of local communities. That will start making people in favour of development, whereas the previous Government set them against it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: If the Minister’s plans are to support local government, what powers will he give it when developers do not deliver? The Westfield shopping centre in Bradford has taken 10 years to happen, and the local authority has no powers to get the developers to deliver. Has he considered such powers in his new proposals?

Greg Clark: I visited the development site that the hon. Gentleman mentions last month. It is right in the centre of Bradford, and I can see that there is a problem at the moment and that the site needs to be brought back into use. I agreed to work with the leadership of the council to explore ways of doing that, but he will know, as an experienced Minister, that we cannot force a developer to act if it does not have the necessary funds in place to do so.

Local Authority Service Provision

Julie Hilling: What recent assessment he has made of potential effects on levels of local authority service provision of reductions in central Government funding to local authorities.

Bob Neill: Local government is best placed to assess and decide on local priorities, not Whitehall. This Government have given councils the power and flexibility to take decisions
	locally on how to deliver the savings needed, and I hope that they will do so by reducing back-office inefficiencies and high senior salary levels, rather than cutting the front-line services that matter most.

Julie Hilling: Youth workers in Oxfordshire, like others up and down the country, were instructed to work on the streets during the recent disturbances, but they are now all being made redundant. Youth work is clearly a front-line service, so what is the Minister going to do to stop this destruction? I do hope that he is not going to reiterate the nonsense that savings can be made by cutting executive pay and merging back-room functions.

Bob Neill: I am sorry that, in her otherwise serious point, the hon. Lady suggests that efficiency is nonsense; I do not think that it is. In answer to her specific point, the British Youth Council, the National Youth Agency and the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services have all condemned the disorder that we saw on the streets and they are working well with the Government. I hope that she will support the Government’s initiative for national citizen service, which is being piloted in the Bolton lads and girls club in her area. There’s youth service in action!

New Homes

Nick Raynsford: How many new homes received planning consent in the second quarter of 2011 in England.

Grant Shapps: The latest planning statistics show that in the year to March 2011, local planning authorities granted 37,500 residential planning permissions; that is up 8% on 2009-10.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw the House’s attention to my interests?
	Will the Minister admit that the figures for the second quarter—the latest available—show that the number of planning consents for residential development were down 23% on last year? That is the second lowest level ever recorded, and less than half the level necessary to provide for housing needs. Will he also now admit that the Government’s maladroit tampering with the planning system has created the near impossible—namely, achieving the lowest level of housing planning permissions at the same time as infuriating the National Trust and other countryside groups by the prospect of indiscriminate growth?

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman was the architect of many of the policies that led to the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. When we rip up the regional spatial strategies, cancel his top-down targets and put local people in charge, we can see the results, not measured over one little quarter that he plucks out of the air but over the entire first year of this new Government. Those results show that there were just 88,500 house building starts in the last year of his Government, and that the number had risen to 103,500 in the first year of this Government. That is a rise of 17%.

Unauthorised Development

Caroline Nokes: What plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities in dealing with unauthorised development.

Eric Pickles: Local authorities already have strong powers to act against unauthorised development which apply to everyone who ignores planning controls. In the Localism Bill, we have taken action to restrict retrospective planning applications, to ensure that people do not get away with flouting the system.

Caroline Nokes: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. What assurances can he give me that those rules will apply equally to all residents, and that the Travelling community will not be exempt from rules that apply to the rest of the population?

Eric Pickles: It is right and proper that we should respect the lifestyle choices of the Travelling community, but that does not give them particular rights over other citizens, particularly among the settled community. This Government will introduce special rules to ensure that authorities that provide pitches for Travellers receive a top-up against the new homes bonus, but the planning rules must be blind to a person’s ethnic background.

Housing Supply

Alec Shelbrooke: Whether he plans to set the strategic housing land availability assessments of potential housing provided by unimplemented planning permissions against the five-year supply requirement.

Greg Clark: I can confirm that, yes, councils will be able to use unimplemented consents in their five-year supply.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful for that reply, but I urge the Minister to work closely with councils on publishing more guidance and setting out how to build a strong evidence base in order to include windfall sites, so that Leeds city council can stand up in the planning courts and use the 2.3 years of windfall supply as part of the current five-year supply, because at the moment, it is losing on every appeal.

Greg Clark: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. As he knows, I visited Leeds in recent days, and I believe he was returning from his honeymoon, on which all Members will, I am sure, wish to congratulate him. I understand the situation he outlines: having the ability to use these unimplemented consents will be a start, and I would be happy to meet him, now that he is back in such fine form, to continue the discussion.

Topical Questions

Chris Skidmore: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: I have today laid a written statement outlining the work of my Department over the recess. We have been promoting economic growth, promoting local shops and firms, and giving new incentives for councils to create jobs and businesses. We have increased freedoms to local councils, cut Whitehall red tape and boosted transparency in government. We have taken the lead in helping local communities get back to business after the August riots. I would like to pay tribute to local councils that provided leadership to their communities during that period, to the firefighters who bravely tackled arson in the face of violence and, above all, to local residents who literally picked up their brooms to clean up and reclaim the streets after the mess.

Chris Skidmore: Can the Secretary of State guarantee that, unlike the previous Government’s disastrous regional spatial strategy under which 10,000 houses were planned to be built on the Kingswood green belt, the national planning policy framework will retain all current green belt protections?

Eric Pickles: There was a time when I was a frequent visitor to my hon. Friend’s constituency, so I know the strength of local feeling about the green belt. Let me give him a clear and unequivocal assurance that the green belt will be protected under this coalition Government, unlike under the previous Labour Government, who promised to build on it.

Stephen Twigg: The Aspes road-Leyfield lane footpath in my constituency is little used by local people, yet it has become a focus for crime and antisocial behaviour. Will the Secretary of State look at the rules and bureaucracy that make it very difficult for local communities to secure the closure of such footpaths?

Eric Pickles: I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific problem he mentions; perhaps we will be able to do something to sort it out. I am grateful to him for raising the issue.

Andrew Stephenson: At a time when the whole country is working hard to help pay down the last Government’s deficit and public sector workers are experiencing a two-year pay freeze, it appears that some council chief executives are still finding elaborate ways to hike their pay. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging overpaid council chief executives to do the right thing and take a pay cut?

Eric Pickles: I certainly hope that chief executives will do the right thing. Above all, this issue is not just about money, but a question of leadership. It is about looking other council workers in the eye, particularly those who might face voluntary redundancy or early retirement. That is why chief executives should make some kind of sacrifice. Frankly, it is no good making a big song and dance about taking a cut and then bumping up expenses in private.

Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, in the aftermath of the riots, to give the extra £20 million to Tottenham and
	Croydon. Does he agree that this should be focused on the businesses that have been burnt out and devastated and the citizens who were the major victims of the devastation? Will he be clear that he never intended £8.5 million of that riot money to be given to a very rich premiership football club, namely Tottenham Hotspur?

Eric Pickles: I shall be visiting Croydon very soon to discuss the possibilities. However, it is important to understand that the extra money made available was intended not to deal with riot damage or to get businesses up and running again, but to deal with some of Croydon’s long-term structural problems. I noted carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said about the football club, and will be happy to discuss with him elsewhere what should be done next.

Alok Sharma: A recent independent report on the use of section 106 moneys by Labour-run Reading borough council concluded, among other things, that it was
	“difficult to categorically state that officers or members in position of power have not abused their position”.
	What advice can the Minister offer concerned council tax payers who want to see the full and exhaustive investigation that Labour in Reading is refusing to initiate?

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As I am sure he will appreciate, I must be careful not to say too much about the individual case because I understand that a reference may be made to the district auditor, but I can say more generally that both the report and his question highlight the problem that has arisen as a result of the opacity and lack of transparency of section 106 agreements. The Government inherited that problem, but we are committed to reforming section 106 agreements, and have made proposals to do so.

Barry Sheerman: Does the ministerial team agree that one of way of making local government more efficient would be to make the people who work in it feel valued, and feel that they do a good job for their communities? Is it not about time that Ministers spoke up with one voice about what a good job those people do throughout our communities?

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree, and I think that if there was ever an example of that, it could be seen in the aftermath of the riots. I spoke to just about every council leader affected, and was immensely impressed by their determination to ensure that their communities recovered very quickly. I cannot praise their efforts highly enough.

Jason McCartney: Many of my constituents are totally perplexed about why Labour-run Kirklees council is trying to steamroller through big housing developments in parts of the countryside such as Lindley Moor and the northern gateway area while there are hundreds of empty homes throughout the district. Does the Minister agree that the number of empty homes in Kirklees should be a material consideration in the council’s local plan?

Greg Clark: Yes, I do agree, and it will be entirely possible for the empty homes in my hon. Friend’s authority to be considered as part of the contribution to the total.

Stephen McCabe: I am not sure that the Minister entirely succeeded in convincing the House earlier with his answer to the question about the definition of the phrase
	“a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.
	Given that the interpretation of that phrase will be central to the Government’s ambition to improve the planning process, will the Secretary of State consider providing a clearer definition and placing it in the Library of the House?

Greg Clark: As I said before, we have adopted exactly the same definition that applied under the last Government. I have made it clear that if there are discussions to be held on ensuring that everyone understands precisely what is meant, I shall be very open to that, but what is crucial is that we reform planning policy in order to unlock jobs and create homes for the next generation of young people.

David Morris: Under the coalition Government, house building statistics in England are 22% higher than those during the comparative period under the last Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must never again see circumstances in which council tax bills double yet results are so poor?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to allow communities to grow and allow local people to have a stake in that growth, which is why we will ensure—both through the new homes bonus and through reformed business rates—that an ambitious local authority can improve the lot of people who live in their area, who, for the first time, will have a stake in the future.

Toby Perkins: In response to the question from the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said that we were facing a crisis of growth. What does it say about the policies of the present Government that after the abolition of the regional development agencies and six months after the budget for growth, a Minister has come to the House and admitted that there is a crisis for growth?

Greg Clark: The crisis of growth that I was referring to was the one that was bequeathed to us by the previous Labour Government. We noticed that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has decided not to say what she thinks of the reforms that we are enacting. She has spent six weeks failing to give a view on that. A few weeks ago, the leader of her party said that
	“the promise of a better life for the next generation is under threat…How are they going to buy their first home?”
	Does she support our simplified planning system or not? She did not answer.

Julian Huppert: Does the Minister agree that we need to keep our high streets healthy and diverse and support independent shops? Will he therefore support the Cambridge amendment 153AKC, tabled by Lord Greaves, to the Localism Bill, which gives local people the power to support their high streets in that way?

Andrew Stunell: The health of the high street is a fundamental characteristic of a healthy community and we are strongly promoting that through the national policy planning framework—or the other way around even. We will look hard at the proposals that come from our noble Friends in the Lords and give careful consideration to them.

Andrew Gwynne: It is clear from an earlier answer that the Minister sees the current planning framework as a burden. Is he so blinkered not to recognise the concern that his changes could signal the return to the 1980s planning free-for-all, undermining the established sequential test—brownfield, open space—and town centre policies along the way?

Greg Clark: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. If he takes the specific example of brownfield sites, he will find that paragraph 165 of the framework sets out clearly that land of the least environmental value should be brought forward first. That is another way of saying, brownfield land first.

Henry Smith: I welcome the proposed localisation of the council tax benefits system. Can my hon. Friend say whether the funding of the administration of that system will also be localised, or remain central Government grant?

Bob Neill: As my hon. Friend knows, we are consulting on a raft of matters in relation to local government finance. We propose shortly to issue some technical papers. Perhaps when he has read those, I will be happy to meet him to discuss the issue.

Andrew Love: To address housing need, we need to build more than 200,000 properties, but according to the statistics that are coming out, it is unlikely that we will complete half that number in the coming year. The Government have already massively cut support for affordable housing and made a complete botch of the planning system. What will they do to address the coming housing crisis?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman has rightly defined the problem of the legacy that this Government inherited, with the lowest house building since the ’20s, but I am pleased to be able to report that, compared with the comparative period when Labour was in power, since the election, housing building starts are up 22%. I hope he will join me in welcoming those statistics.

Andrew Selous: If the Prime Minister were to give the Secretary of State an additional role, I doubt he would ask for more money to do it, so does he agree that council chief
	executives who double as returning officers and already earn more than he does should not receive an additional fee for overseeing elections?

Eric Pickles: This is something very close to all our hearts in this Chamber. That, of course, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Justice, but to me this seems common sense. I have not come across many chief executives who do the count and organise the postal votes; that is often done by the deputy returning officer. I know that a number of returning officers ensure that the extra money is shared among staff. I think that that is the right course, but if chief executives are pocketing that money, they should feel ashamed.

Clive Efford: Local authority-run closed circuit television played a vital role in investigating many of the riots in our high streets only a month ago, yet the Protection of Freedoms Bill will make it more difficult and bureaucratic for local authorities to install CCTV. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to reflect on that, and consult local authorities and police before we go ahead with the measures in the Bill?

Eric Pickles: Of course we will reflect on those matters, but it is important that these important intrusions into people’s private lives are regulated, and the Bill intends to regulate them, but if the hon. Gentleman has a specific point, we will be happy to look into it.

Mr Speaker: James Gray. Not here.

James Morris: The West Midlands fire service is proposing to merge two fire stations in my constituency, which will significantly reduce the level of fire cover, reducing the number of fire engines from two to one. Will the Minister responsible commit to meet me and the chief of the West Midlands fire service to review those proposals and to ensure that the same level of fire cover is retained in my constituency?

Bob Neill: Of course I am happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend, but I must point out that these are local decisions for the fire authority, which must at all times act in accordance with its integrated risk management plan and its statutory obligations under fire services legislation.

Chuka Umunna: What is the Secretary of State doing in conjunction with other Departments to promote awareness among uninsured
	local businesses affected by last month’s riots that under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 the deadline for making compensation claims will fall imminently—this week, I think?

Eric Pickles: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we extended the normal period within which claims can be made. We have put out a simplified form—or, rather, we have worked with local authorities to put out a simplified form. It is available on our website. I am not aware that there are many businesses that have suffered an uninsured loss that have not come forward, but we do intend to use this money to get those businesses back into business, so that the community can continue to thrive.

Greg Hands: May I congratulate the whole ministerial team on being bold on planning reform? Whatever the rights and wrongs of individual planning decisions, it cannot be right that the planning process itself costs 10 times more in central London than in central Paris or central Brussels. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to ensure that we pare down the costs of the planning process so that we can contribute to the country’s economic growth.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Reform of the planning process is a crucial part of “The Plan for Growth”. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government whereby the centralisation of the economy has led to depressed levels of growth. We are turning that around through fundamental reforms, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support.

Lilian Greenwood: Last year, Nottingham city council, which serves some of the most deprived communities in the country, was subjected to the biggest cuts in funding, while rural shire counties were protected. Will the Secretary of State look again at this year’s settlement and get a fairer deal for my constituents?

Eric Pickles: We had to put in place protection for Nottingham because the Labour party withdrew the working neighbourhoods fund; we had to protect Nottingham from Labour cuts. My advice to Nottingham is that if it wants to get favourable treatment from the Government, it should publish its expenditure online: publish and be damned!

Libya

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Libya.
	When we met here on that Friday in March, Gaddafi’s tanks bore down on Benghazi, his air force had already begun strikes against his people, and his army had smashed through Zawiyah, with a grave loss of life. Gaddafi had vowed to hunt down his own people like rats, using the full might of his armed forces, backed up by mercenaries. I did not think Britain should stand by as Gaddafi slaughtered his people. Nor could we allow a failed pariah state festering on Europe’s southern border, with the potential to threaten our own security.
	The Libyan opposition and the Arab League both called for NATO to protect the civilian population, so, together with the US and France, we secured agreement for UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 and, with this clear legal mandate, this House voted by a majority of 544 in favour of military action. Today, the Libyan people have taken their country back.
	I am grateful for the support that all parts of this House have given over the last six months, and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible dedication and professionalism of our pilots, sailors, ground crew and everyone in our armed forces who has been involved in this mission.
	But we should also pay a full tribute to the bravery and resilience of the Libyan people themselves. This has been their revolution and none of it could have happened without them. Ordinary Libyans from all walks of life came together and rose up against Gaddafi. From the villages of the Nafusa mountains to the tower blocks of Misrata, the alleyways of Zawiyah and the streets of Benghazi, the Libyan people fought with incredible courage. Many paid with their lives. Others have been seriously injured, and the struggle is not over. They still face forces loyal to a dictator who last week threatened to turn Libya “into a hell”.
	And the long work of building a new Libya is just beginning, but what is clear is that the future of Libya belongs to its people. The task of the international community now is to support them as they build that future. That means helping to finish the job, ensuring security, addressing the immediate humanitarian needs and supporting the longer-term process of reconstruction and political transition to democracy. Let me address each in turn.
	First, on finishing the job, Britain has been at the forefront of the military operation to protect the Libyan people. Our aircraft have made over 2,400 sorties across Libya, carrying out one fifth of all NATO airstrikes, against some 900 targets in Gaddafi’s war machine. Our warships have supported this effort, helping to enforce the UN arms embargo and bringing aid to those in need. At its peak, some 2,300 British servicemen and women were deployed on Operation Ellamy, with 36 aircraft including 16 Tornados, six Typhoons, five attack helicopters, tankers and specialist surveillance aircraft and helicopters. These were supported over the course of the operation by eight warships and a hunter-killer submarine.
	But the job is not over. As we stand, the free Libya forces have liberated Tripoli and control Libya’s key population centres, but pro-Gaddafi forces still pose a
	threat and, in particular, control the towns of Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sabha in the south of the country. The national transitional council has been working to negotiate a peaceful outcome, but its leaders have explicitly requested that NATO continue its operations to protect civilians until that is achieved. Over the weekend, RAF Tornados struck eight military command and control installations south-west of Waddan and nine weapons and ammunition stores near Sirte.
	For as long as Gaddafi remains at large, the safety and the security of the Libyan people remain under threat. So let me be clear: we will not let up until the job is done. First, Britain and its NATO allies will continue to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 for as long as we are needed to protect civilian life. Those thinking that NATO will somehow pull out or pull back must think again. We are ready to extend the NATO mandate for as long as is necessary.
	Secondly, we will support the Libyan people in bringing Gaddafi to justice. This is a man whose crimes are becoming ever more apparent every day and who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. There must be no bolthole; no pampered hiding place from justice. He must face the consequences of his actions, under international and Libyan law.
	Turning to security, the early signs have been encouraging. There has been some disorder, but it has been focused on symbols of the former regime. The national transitional council is moving to stand down fighters from outside Tripoli. The police are returning to the streets, and the council leaders have been clear and consistent in cautioning against disorder and, crucially, against reprisals. Britain and its international partners are helping, too, working closely with the national transitional council in securing chemical weapons sites and supporting mine clearance in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas.
	On the humanitarian situation, Britain has played a leading role from the outset. The priorities today are health, water, food and fuel. On health, our humanitarian partners report that hospitals and clinics in Tripoli are now functioning well, and staff are returning to work. Britain is providing additional support through the International Committee of the Red Cross, including surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war-wounded patients.
	On water, substantial numbers of people in Tripoli are still without running water. However, UNICEF is procuring 11 million litres of bottled water, and the Libyan authorities are working to repair the water systems. The NTC reports that 100 wells are back online, representing 20% of capacity.
	On fuel, there remain significant shortages but the situation is improving, and the World Food Programme shipment is supporting the national transitional council with the procurement of 250,000 litres of fuel.
	Let me turn to reconstruction. Libya is a country of 6.5 million people. It is one of the richest in Africa. Its proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world. Libya is fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction. Of course there is a role for foreign advice, help and support, but I do not think we want to see an army of foreign consultants driving around in 4x4s, giving the impression that this is something being done to the Libyans, rather than something that is being done by them.
	What the Libyans need above all is their frozen assets back. A week ago, Britain got Security Council agreement to release £1 billion-worth of dinars back to the Central Bank of Libya, and RAF planes have already flown in hundreds of millions of dinars of these banknotes. At the summit in Paris last Thursday, the international community committed to unfreezing $15 billion of Libyan assets, and for their part—vitally—we expect the new Libyan authorities to meet their pledge of ensuring transparent and accountable financial systems.
	Next, on political transition, some people warned, as Gaddafi himself did, that the Libyan people could not be trusted with freedom—that without Gaddafi there would be chaos. What is emerging now, despite years of repression, and the trauma of recent months, is impressive and encouraging. In a far-reaching road map and constitutional declaration, the new authorities have set out a clear vision and a process for a new democratic Libya. This is not being imposed from above; it is being shaped by the Libyan people. At the Paris summit, chairman Abdul-Jalil spoke of his determination to build a society of tolerance and forgiveness, with respect for the rule of law. A national conference will bring together all the tribes—civil society; men and women, from east and west—united to shape this political transition. They are planning for a new constitution and elections within 20 months.
	Britain is also in discussions in New York about a new UN Security Council resolution to reflect the new situation. The new Libyan authorities must now be able to represent their country at the United Nations, as they did last week at the Arab League. I also look forward to building our bilateral relationship with the new Libyan authority. We have close relations with the NTC through our mission in Benghazi, and today the UK’s special representative is going to Tripoli to re-establish our full diplomatic presence in that city.
	Our relationship with the new Libya must, of course, deal with a series of problems from the past. On Megrahi, this is obviously a matter for the Scottish Executive. I have made my position clear: I believe that he should never have been sent back to Libya in the first place. On WPC Yvonne Fletcher, I want to see justice for her family. There is an ongoing police investigation, and the House will wish to know that Prime Minister Jabril has assured me of the new Libyan authority’s intention to co-operate fully.
	Finally, significant accusations have been reported today that under the last Government relations between the British and Libyan security services became too close, particularly in 2003. It was because of accusations of potential complicity by the British security services in the mistreatment of detainees overseas, including rendition, that I took steps in July last year to try to sort this whole problem out. As the House will remember, we acted to bring to an end the large number of court cases being brought against the Government by former inmates of Guantanamo; we have issued new guidance to security and intelligence services personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries; and we have asked retired judge Sir Peter Gibson to examine issues around the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects overseas. This inquiry has already said that it will look at these latest accusations very carefully. My concern throughout has been not only to remove any stain on Britain’s reputation, but to deal with these
	accusations of malpractice so as to enable our security services to get on with the vital work that they do. Because they cannot speak for themselves, let me put on the record, once again, our enormous gratitude for all they do to keep our country safe.
	The achievement of the Libyan people gives hope to those across the wider region who want a job, a voice and a stake in how their country is run. On Syria, Britain will continue to lead the argument for a UN resolution to build on the EU’s oil embargo, which is now in place. The message to President Assad must be clear: he has lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead Syria, the violence must end and he should step aside for the good of his country.
	It is the Libyan people who have liberated their country; there was no foreign occupying army. This has been a Libyan-led process, assisted by the international community. Many cynics proclaimed stalemate and asserted that Gaddafi would never be defeated—the Libyan people proved them wrong. It was a unique set of circumstances and not something that we can or would wish to repeat all over the world, but I have never accepted the argument that because you can’t do everything, you shouldn’t do anything. Removing Gaddafi from power was a major achievement. Although the work is not yet done, the Libyan people can be proud of what they have achieved and we can be proud of what we have done to help them. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? Let me join him in paying tribute to the courage of the Libyan people, because this was their uprising. They knew the price that might be paid if they rose up against the regime to claim a better future and yet they found the courage to do so and to win through. We on the Opposition Benches salute their bravery and sacrifice, but change in Libya would not have come about without action from the international community. Let me therefore commend the role played by the Prime Minister and the British Government in making it happen. The initiative of pressing for UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 made the action to protect civilians possible. It was a risk and it was the right thing to do. For our part, we supported it at the time, we have remained steadfast in our support and we support it now.
	If we had not acted, we would have spent recent months not talking about the progress of our action in Libya but wringing our hands over slaughter in Benghazi, as we did after Bosnia. This time, however, the international community did not stand by—it acted through and with the authority of the United Nations. Once again, as the Prime Minister said, it was to our brave British servicemen and women that we turned and as always, they have risen to the challenge. They represent the best of our country and again we owe them a debt of gratitude.
	I want to ask a number of questions about the security situation, economic stabilisation, the political settlement now required and some of the wider lessons, but let me first say that I agree with the Prime Minister that the Gibson inquiry must get to the bottom of the allegations we have seen about the involvement of the security services in relation to Libya. No part of the British state should ever be complicit in torture.
	Let me turn first to the security situation. The Prime Minister is right to say that there should be no artificial deadlines for the end of NATO action. We are in Libya to enforce a Security Council resolution and we should be engaged in action for no more and no less than the time it takes to ensure that the UN mandate for the protection of civilians is fulfilled. Given the symbolic and substantive importance of the national transitional council’s taking up its place in government in Tripoli, will the Prime Minister give us a sense from the Paris conference about when we might expect that to happen, as that will speak to the security situation in Tripoli?
	We know from past conflicts that security matters but that essential to a successful transition is economic and social reconstruction, and we all agree that that must be Libyan-owned. I welcome the extra assistance that the Government have announced to help provide medicine and food and to reunite families who have been affected by the fighting. The Prime Minister will agree that the role of the UN will be very important in co-ordinating that help, so will he say what discussions he has had with UN special envoy al-Khatib and how prepared he believes the UN is to provide the necessary help to the Libyan people? Will he also share with the House his thoughts on how the new UN resolution he talked about, which will provide recognition for a new Government, will also provide a mandate for a longer-term UN mission to support the Libyan Government?
	The Prime Minister is right that the oil wealth of Libya offers huge potential for its people. Given that the legitimacy of the popular uprising was based around the fact that the Libyans themselves were clearly in the lead, that also needs to be true of the oil resources. Does he agree that we should learn the lessons of the period following past conflicts and ensure that the role of private companies working in Libya is to operate transparently and in a way that clearly benefits the Libyan people?
	On the politics, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the NTC’s commitment to establishing a new constitution and holding elections within 18 months. On the former members of the regime, we agree that we should provide full support to the Libyan people and their new Government in bringing Colonel Gaddafi and the leadership to justice either through the ICC or the Libyan courts, but we have also learned from past conflicts the need for a broad based and inclusive political process of reconciliation —indeed, the Prime Minister talked about that in his statement—as well as for the vital work of maintaining Government services. Will the Prime Minister share with the House his understanding of how the NTC will continue to use officials from the lower level of government to keep basic services running?
	We also know that democracy takes root not just through the formal process of the ballot box but through a strong, vibrant civil society. Will the Prime Minister tell us what specific plans there are for direct relationships between Libya and organisations such as the BBC World Service, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council, which can play an important role in helping to build up civil society?
	Let me finally ask about the lessons of this conflict for Britain and for the international community. The Arab spring was clearly not envisaged at the time of the
	strategic defence and security review and has meant a call on some resources that were due to become obsolete. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he sees the case that I see for there to be gain in formally looking afresh at the SDSR in the light of events in Libya and the Arab spring?
	For the international community as a whole, the lesson is of the effectiveness it can have when it comes together through the UN and speaks with one voice. No two situations are the same, as the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the situation in Syria is different for a number of reasons, not least practical issues, in relation to the idea of military intervention and, indeed, the lack of support for it. We support the use of all non-military means at our disposal in relation to Syria. I have heard the Prime Minister’s remarks about President Assad and I share his view. He talked about the need for a new UN resolution, but will he tell us how he assesses the chances of getting that resolution and what further steps he believes can be taken against the Assad regime in the absence of a resolution?
	Let me end on this thought: the Arab spring has seen the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It is right that Britain has been on the side of those who are fighting to enjoy the basic social, economic and political rights that we take for granted. Let me end by agreeing with the Prime Minister that we should take pride in the role we have played in protecting the Libyan people as they claim a better future. We should now help them as they enter the next phase—moving from popular revolt to stable, democratic government.

David Cameron: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks in response to my statement? He is right to pose the alternative and ask what would have happened had we stood back and done nothing—what we would have been discussing today? Of course, he is also right to praise our brave service personnel. I note what he said about backing the Gibson inquiry and the important work that it needs to do in looking at all the accusations of complicity.
	On the three issues of security, stabilisation and politics let me try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, on security, he is right that there should be no artificial deadline for NATO. We must continue until the job is done. On the NTC’s move from Benghazi to Tripoli, that is already under way. Parts of the NTC have moved and it is very important that it should move as a whole. We should not try to second-guess everything it does. I have been very struck through this process by the fact that the NTC often gets criticised. Calls are made for it to do this and that, and in the end it always seems to rise to the challenge. I think it has been effective and we should not underestimate the people working in it.
	On stabilisation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN’s role. It is important to differentiate between the role of Mr al-Khatib, who was trying to look at ways of finding a peace process before this conflict resulted in the fall of Tripoli, and the role of Ian Martin, who is specifically drawing up the plans for a UN mission to Libya. I think those plans are well under way and it is very important that we focus on the things that the Libyans want rather than on the things we think they might want. It was quite interesting, in Paris, to hear the specific things they cared about most. Clearly,
	one role that the UN can play is to make sure that the elections, when they come, are properly observed and are free and fair. The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about private companies is a good one and we should learn all the lessons from past conflicts as he says.
	In terms of the process of reconciliation and maintaining Government services, one thing that the NTC has been trying to do—again, quite effectively, I think; we have been advising and helping where we can—is make sure that there is no de-Ba’athification process and that relatively junior officials in departments are encouraged to go back to work. These are very early days and there are going to be huge problems at the end of a conflict like this, but the signs are that things such as rubbish collection, hospital services and getting the police back on the streets seem to be working.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about longer-term relationships with the British Council and others. Clearly, once the security situation is in a better state, those relationships can be built from a very strong basis.
	On the strategic defence review, I would argue, having followed this very closely through the National Security Council on Libya, which met sometimes daily through this conflict, that the case for what we are doing in the review has been proved. It has been proved that it was the right decision to keep the Tornado aircraft with the Storm Shadow capability, which performed magnificently over the skies of Libya. Typhoon has in many ways come of age. One of the things that became clear in the conflict was the need for greater ISTAR—greater eyes in the sky, greater technical capabilities—and that is provided for in the strategic defence review. Of course, after any such conflict and an intense period of military, Government and humanitarian activity, it is right to learn the lessons. Sir Peter Ricketts, my national security adviser, will be leading a lessons-learned exercise on how the Whitehall machine operated and what lessons we can learn. That should include the operation of the oil cell, which I think did a very good job of trying to help deny oil to the regime and to make sure that the rebels, who were not getting oil products, got them.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN resolution on Syria. We will continue to work for a strong resolution. It has obviously been difficult to get agreement to date. The EU oil embargo is an important step forward and has a real effect. Above all, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I agree with him that we can take pride in what British forces and British officials have done on this occasion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Understandably, there is wide interest in the Prime Minister’s statement. If I am to accommodate that interest, I require brevity. In pursuit of a helping hand, I look to an old hand—Mr Nicholas Soames.

Nicholas Soames: I join in the praise from the Prime Minister for the magnificent performance of the British armed forces and for the courage and resolution of the Libyan people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters are inevitably about to become a little messy in Libya in the months ahead,
	and that it will be important for Britain to continue to offer what help it can in a spirit of general co-operation and humility?

David Cameron: That is absolutely right. It is very important that when people are looking at the humanitarian plan, the reconstruction plan and the plan for political progress in Libya, we recognise that this is something that the Libyans are doing themselves. We are there to help and to assist, but it is their plan, not our plan. Humility on this occasion is right.

Jack Straw: I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in praising the leadership that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have shown during the whole of this period. There is no doubt that that was decisive in securing international co-operation and in following it through.
	On the allegations that have been made overnight, as Foreign Secretary at the time, may I say two things? First, as the Prime Minister knows, it was the consistent policy of the previous Government, as it is of his, to be wholly opposed to any complicity in torture, ill treatment or unlawful rendition. Secondly, given the serious nature of the allegations, it is entirely right that they should be examined in every detail by the inquiry under Sir Peter Gibson.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about me, the Foreign Secretary and others. On the issue that he raises, it is right that Sir Peter Gibson can look at the whole area. It is important that nobody rushes to judgment. We have to remember that in 2003, two years after 9/11, there was a Libyan terrorist group that was allied to al-Qaeda. At all times our security services and intelligence services are trying to work for the good of the country to keep us safe, so it is important to remember the circumstances at the time. Nobody should rush to judgment, but it is the right hon. Gentleman’s view, my view and the view of the entire House that Britain should never be complicit in torture or in extraordinary rendition, and it is very important that we make sure that that is the case.

Menzies Campbell: My right hon. Friend has been circumspect in his references to the documents which have recently emerged, and with good reason, but does he agree that there is one lesson that can be learned at this stage—that particularly when dealing with unsavoury regimes in the shadowy world of intelligence, it is necessary to maintain both fastidiousness and distance so as to avoid accusations of impropriety or illegality?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. As I put it in my statement, the accusation is that after Libya came in from the cold and gave up the weapons of mass destruction, the relationship almost became too close at times. There was a degree of credulity. I think that is the accusation. It is important to put on record our thanks to the security services for what they do. What I have tried to do and what the Government have tried to do is put in place a new set of arrangements—proper guidance to intelligence and security services personnel to clear out these Guantanamo Bay cases that were going to drag through our courts and bring
	our security services and our country down, to deal with them properly, and then to have an inquiry, so that we get to the bottom of what happened and if there was any malpractice, we deal with it. It is important that we clear up the issue once and for all, and I believe the steps that we have taken will do that.

Chris Bryant: I, too, commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played this year, but I urge him to use the same dedication when it comes to Syria, because many of us—all of us, I suspect—are scandalised by what we have seen throughout these summer months. He is visiting Moscow, as I understand it, next week. I hope that he will make it absolutely clear to the Russian Government—both sides of the Government; the President and the Prime Minister—that thus far their protection of the Syrian Government has been wholly abhorrent to those of us who hate the human rights abuses in such countries.

David Cameron: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in loathing the human rights abuses that are taking place in Syria. What we have seen happening is simply appalling—the loss of life, the damage and terror that the President has been inflicting on his own people.
	On Russia, one of the encouraging things is that the Russians came to the Paris conference, were one of the 63 countries represented there and supported the statement that came out of it about NATO continuing its work and making sure that we complete the job in Libya—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is right then to say from a sedentary position, “What about Syria?” I think that the whole international community can learn the lesson of some success in Libya and apply that elsewhere in terms of the unity that we need to see in the UN Security Council to put pressure on Syria.

Richard Ottaway: As someone who had reservations about the principle of intervention, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful outcome in Libya? It was largely achieved by two aspects: first, it was legal; and secondly, it had the support of the Libyan people. Further to the previous question, however, will my right hon. Friend now use it as an illustration to persuade permanent members of the Security Council, such as Russia and China, that a well conducted intervention can be successfully used to restrain autocrats in countries such as Syria?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Everyone should have misgivings about such operations, and one should never have the naive belief that they are easy or that everything is going to go to plan. That very rarely happens, and we should always be hard-headed and careful about such things. We should also respect the fact that this is not done—this is not completed yet.
	Also, I think that we should be very cautious about trying to draw up a new doctrine, because it seems to me that as soon as a new doctrine is established, a case comes up that flies completely in its face, but I do hope that other members of the Security Council will see that there has been success in removing a dictator, and in giving that country a chance of peaceful and democratic progress, which will be good for the world.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the inquiry conducted by Sir Peter Gibson be held entirely in public? Will it have access to all the documents that have been discovered in Libya which, apparently, are now under the control of the national transitional council? Will it look at the question of British military involvement with Libya up until March and what lessons can be learned from that?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. On Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, some of it will be held in public and some of it by necessity—because of the very sensitive nature of what he will be looking at—will be held in private.
	On the documentation, Sir Peter will have access to all the paperwork he wants to see. Clearly, what has come out of Libya in recent days is relevant to him, and I think he has already announced that he is looking forward to seeing that information.
	On Britain’s relationship with Libya, as I have said, it is entirely understandable that it was the previous Government’s wish to have with Libya a new relationship after getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. In some instances, it was too credulous—I have mentioned particularly Megrahi—and, obviously, we need to think carefully about our security, our military involvement and our sales to all regimes. That is why at the start of the Arab spring we reviewed our practices, and we should keep them under review.

Patrick Mercer: How concerned is the Prime Minister about reports of Islamist influence in the new Libyan Government?

David Cameron: One should treat all these reports with concern, and we should obviously always look carefully at who we are dealing with, but one of the long-term answers to Islamic extremism is the successful development of democracy in the Arab world.
	This is a three-part play: part one is getting rid of bin Laden; part two is greater democracy throughout the middle east; and part three is a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. To think that supporting such dictators helped us to deal with Islamic extremism is to be profoundly wrong. We find that many of the Islamic extremists whom we are fighting or dealing with in Pakistan or, even, in Afghanistan come out of countries such as Libya and Syria, and we should ask, “Why?”

Gisela Stuart: Large numbers of Libyans have fled their country in the past few months. What discussions have there been with countries such as Italy and Malta to enable them to return?

David Cameron: The Italians and Maltese are extremely keen that people should return and there is now every reason that they can. I have been impressed by the members of the Libyan diaspora in London who have been in and out of Libya even while the conflict has been going on. The pressure can be great, particularly on small countries such as Malta. As the hon. Lady knows, we have a relationship with Malta through which we will use our embassies elsewhere in the world to help it with this issue.

Julian Lewis: As well as the Gibson inquiry, does the Prime Minister see a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in investigating the allegation, which if true would be shameful and shocking, that Britain had a part in handing suspects over to the Gaddafi regime, even in the context of 2003?

David Cameron: It is absolutely a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee what it examines, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) will want to look closely at those allegations. As I say, I do not think that any of us should rush to judgment. We have to remember the situation that the world and this country were in post 9/11, when there was a real concern about people who wanted to damage our country. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was allied with al-Qaeda. It is not any more and has separated itself from that organisation. Let us allow the inquiries to take their course and not rush to judgment.

Nigel Dodds: May I join in the tributes to the courage of our servicemen and women in their action over Libya, to the Libyan people, and to the political leadership of the Prime Minister and his colleagues during this time? The Prime Minister rightly talked about the issue of legacy, and he referred to Megrahi and WPC Yvonne Fletcher. He said that Libya must deal with the series of problems from the past. Among those will be the issue of compensation and justice for the many hundreds of victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism. Can I seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that he continues to back the case for justice, and that he will do what he can to secure compensation from the new regime?

David Cameron: I certainly will do that and it is a vital issue. There is no doubt that the Libyan provision of Semtex to the IRA was immensely damaging over many years, and it possibly still is today. We need to be clear that this will be an important bilateral issue between Britain and the new Libyan authorities. Clearly we have to let this Government get their feet under the desk, but this is very high up my list of items.

Peter Lilley: After the liberation of Kuwait, in which Britain also played a significant part, the financial costs of our contribution were fully reimbursed, largely by Kuwait itself. Does my right hon. Friend intend to seek a similar contribution from the Libyan authorities once oil begins to flow?

David Cameron: That is not a consideration that we have gone into so far. Clearly there have been costs to the UK from this operation, which are in the region of £120 million, excluding munitions. Obviously, that has been funded from outside the defence budget through the reserve, so it will not impact on other defence spending. My right hon. Friend makes an important point that we can bear in mind.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister rightly said that we would urge that there be no de-Ba’athification process in Libya. However, the reality is that the institutions across Libya are corrupted and weak. In particular, the courts, which are central to
	a functioning modern democratic society, have Gaddafi’s placemen in position. Is Britain, perhaps with the European Union, prepared to put real effort into supporting the development of those civil structures?

David Cameron: We will certainly make available our advice on those issues if it is wanted. In Paris, Chairman Jalil and Prime Minister Jibril talked specifically about the importance of police training and of ensuring that their police are properly independent. It was encouraging to hear them say that. Of course, having a strong, independent justice system is part of any free and democratic society, so we stand by to help in any way that we can.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the progress of the Libyan people and the success of the United Nations’ principle of the responsibility to protect. The catalyst of the uprising was the 15 February protest by the widows, mothers and sisters of the victims of the Abu Selim massacre. Women played a crucial role in the revolution and are a vital resource for the tough task ahead of rebuilding Libya, so what can our Government do to encourage the involvement of women at all levels of the decision-making processes in the NTC and the national conference, in line with not only United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 but the wishes of Libyan civil society organisations such as Women for Libya?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I think one of the best ways to do that is to work with the non-governmental organisations that have particular expertise in that area. I repeat that this is not the same as Iraq, where basically an intervention knocked over a Government, and there was then a de-Ba’athification process and we had to try to put back in place what had gone. Here, we are trying to work with the Libyans, who are putting things in place themselves. I absolutely agree that a much stronger society will emerge if there is a proper and appropriate role for women, which tragically there is not in so many societies. I think going through non-governmental organisations is probably the right answer.

Keith Vaz: May I join others in commending the Prime Minister’s role in these issues? He will know that there are 8,000 Libyan students studying in the United Kingdom at the moment, 2,000 of whom are state-sponsored. The funds for those students are being held by the British Arab Commercial Bank, which cannot release them without the approval of the NTC. Will he use his good offices to ensure that this matter is resolved so that the students can complete their studies and return to rebuild their country?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his kind comments. My understanding is that the money is now being released, but if there are any problems, we will certainly try to help secure it. I think there will be a welter of problems in dealing with unfrozen assets of people who have got stuck in a different country and all the rest of it, and we will have to work through each of those problems in turn.

Bernard Jenkin: May I commend my right hon. Friend for acting in a way that vindicates his policy of Britain acting as an effective global power? May I also commend him for not rushing to a new doctrine or going back to an old one such as liberal interventionism? Does the situation not demonstrate the importance of maintaining armed forces with global reach, so that we can influence global events and project our interests?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. What I would say about doctrine is that if you overdo your belief in a particular doctrine, you will find that the next problem that confronts you will fall completely outside it and you will have to spend a lot of time inventing a new doctrine to deal with it. I am a practical—[Interruption.] Members say that I am a Conservative, and that is right. I am a practical, liberal Conservative—that is what I believe, and I think this was a practical, liberal, Conservative intervention. [Hon. Members: “A new doctrine.”] It is a way of thinking.
	On what my hon. Friend says about armed forces being able to project our reach and power, I absolutely agree with him, and we cannot maintain that reach and power by not having a defence review and by sticking with massed battle tanks in Europe. What we need to do is modernise our armed forces and make sure that we have the reach for the challenges of the future. I repeat what I said: far from disproving the strategic defence review, I think Libya proved the case for the sort of changes that we are making.

David Winnick: No one will be sorry to see the end of Gaddafi’s criminal regime, which was deeply involved in international terrorism, but is there not some hypocrisy in all this? Is it not a fact that up to this year, Britain was selling the Gaddafi regime sniper rifles and crowd control equipment? Now we learn that there was a close collaboration between some western countries—not only Britain—and the Gaddafi regime, in which terror suspects were actually sent to Gaddafi’s torture chamber.

David Cameron: Far be it from me to join the hon. Gentleman in attacking the last Government. To be fair, I think it was right to have a new relationship with Libya when we could persuade it to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, discontinue its nuclear programme and try to take a different path. I have my criticisms of the last Government, as I think they were then too gullible and went too far in that direction. Specifically, when we had the O’Donnell report into Megrahi it found that the last Government were trying to facilitate his release, but I do not criticise the general intent of wanting a new relationship. What really changed was the treatment by Gaddafi of his own people. That was the moment for the world to act, and I am proud of the fact that the world did so.

Rory Stewart: The most impressive aspect of this intervention is the Libyan pride in what Libyans see as a Libyan event. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will do all he can to restrain the irresistible desire of the international
	community to micro-manage and over-intervene? We should remember that in this kind of intervention, less is more.

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge, not least because rather against my will, he spent two days last week in Tripoli. He has seen for himself that the Libyans are managing the transition quite effectively, but what he says about trying to make sure that we understand our role as backing a Libyan plan rather than substituting our judgment for theirs, is the right way ahead.

Caroline Lucas: Has the Prime Minister reviewed Cabinet Office papers to ascertain whether Tony Blair personally authorised the co-operation with the Libyan intelligence services that led to Abu Munthir’s detention and removal to Tripoli in 2003? Will he revise the terms of reference of the Gibson review, so that the nine human rights agencies that currently do not feel that they can co-operate with it because it is not up to the standards of international human rights can co-operate, so that the review will be open and transparent, and so that we can get to the bottom of those questions?

David Cameron: First, let me put the hon. Lady right on one thing: there is a rule that Ministers cannot, willy-nilly, see the papers provided to a previous Government, not least because Governments would probably spend their entire time doing that rather than governing the country, which is what they are supposed to do. That is why there is an inquiry, which is being carried out by an independent judge. We should allow Sir Peter Gibson to get to the bottom of what happened in that case, and indeed to the bottom of any decisions that Ministers of that time made, for which they will have to answer. I believe that that is the right approach, and it is the one that we will follow.

Jane Ellison: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Many of our constituents have probably said over the last few months something along the lines of, “We don’t want another Iraq,” and the post-conflict stage is obviously on people’s minds. Will the Prime Minister give a little more detail on how the lessons of immediately post-conflict Iraq are being applied in this situation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a lot of people have said, “We don’t want another Iraq,” but we should also listen to those people who said, “We don’t want another Bosnia.” The prevention of a massacre was very important in these circumstances.
	On the difference between Libya and Iraq, I would say this: because the Libya operation has not involved an occupying force or an invading army, the Libyan people rightly feel that they have done this largely by themselves. Yes, they have had NATO assistance, for which they are grateful, but just as they own the end of Gadaffi, so they are owning the transition to democracy and all the problems of disorder and crime that there will be in the interim. However, from what I can see, they are dealing with those problems well, and we should be with them, but helping rather than telling them what to do.

Andrew Miller: May I follow the point on migration raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)? One thing that became clear during the previous regime was that many of the people who have ended up in Lampedusa and Malta originated not in Libya, but from other countries, sponsored by an illegal criminal network in which Gadaffi no doubt had a role. That means that such places have huge numbers of cases that are difficult to manage. How will the Prime Minister manage that situation, and will he assure the House that he will open a dialogue with the NTC to ensure that those criminal routes are closed down straight away?

David Cameron: I certainly will do that. First, it is important to get this into perspective: we should bear it in mind that we still get more asylum claims from the countries of northern Europe than we get from the countries of southern Europe. Secondly, we have a relationship with Malta. Clearly, it cannot afford to have embassies all over the world, and we use our embassies in countries such as Niger, Mali and elsewhere to try to help the Maltese to return people to their country of origin. As the hon. Gentleman says, many people coming through Libya are not from Libya.

Mark Pritchard: For the new constitution of Libya to be legitimate, and indeed sustainable, is it not the case that freedom of speech and religion should be included? In particular, should it not give protection to the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we have seen, particularly in Egypt, the importance of protecting Coptic Christians and others. I am heartened by what Chairman Jalil has said about respect for human rights and tolerance, and I am sure that he will want to follow those things through.

Frank Roy: Has an estimation been made of when British oil workers will be allowed to return to their vital jobs in Libya?

David Cameron: I do not have an estimation, but it is in Libya’s interests that the production of oil gets back to normal as fast as possible. Some people say, though, that it could take up to three years to get back to full capacity. The encouraging thing is that a lot of the refineries and other oil installations, such as the ones in Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zawiyah and elsewhere, have not been badly damaged, so there is no reason this should not happen as rapidly as possible.

David Rutley: Like other Members, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown in supporting the will of the Libyan people over the past few months. Will he tell the House what role is envisaged for the Arab League and other Arab nations in the post-conflict reconstruction in Libya in the months ahead?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. I think that there will be a big role for the Arab League. As I said in my statement—this is one
	area where we can learn the lessons of the past—I do not think that Libyans want huge numbers of people driving around in 4x4s telling them what to do. Arab assistance can play a huge role in helping Libyans to get back on their feet. However, they seem very keen to do a lot of this on their own.

Hugh Bayley: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to stress that the political future of Libya needs to be determined by the Libyan people, not by outsiders. Can he cast any light on the statements coming from the African Union about its concerns that the transitional arrangements are not fully inclusive? What discussions is he or the Foreign Secretary having with key African leaders to ensure that any future UN resolution gets African buy-in?

David Cameron: I was very encouraged that at the Paris meeting there were a number of African leaders strongly supportive of the NTC and democratic transition in Libya. Frankly, the African Union has not always been as clear as I would have liked about the importance of democracy, freedom, human rights and progress in Libya. I hope now that all the countries of the African Union will get behind the new Libyan authorities and give them the support and help that they need.

Andrew Rosindell: I think that the whole House will be celebrating the end of the monstrous Gaddafi regime. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will continue to put pressure on the new Libyan Government to ensure that the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher are brought to justice?

David Cameron: Like my hon. Friend, I feel that this is an extremely important issue for the bilateral relationship between Britain and Libya. At the Paris conference, I spoke to Prime Minister Jibril about this issue and told him how important it was to people in our country. It was an appalling act and a reminder of what the Gaddafi regime was capable of. We should put it alongside the provision of Semtex to the IRA that took hundreds of lives and the appalling act of blowing up an airliner over the skies of Scotland. This regime was capable of appalling things and now there is a chance to find justice for these people. We should pursue that very strongly.

Geraint Davies: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the end—hopefully—of Gaddafi, but given that we are in the aftermath of what in many respects was a civil war, how comfortable is he with a 20-month time frame for the delivery of a new constitution and elections? What measures will be put in place to protect human and political rights, including on freedom of movement and international observers?

David Cameron: I believe that the timetable is realistic. The key issue is whether we have faith in the NTC. I have found, throughout my dealings with Prime Minister Jibril and Chairman Jalil, both of whom I have met on a number of occasions, that they want this to be a national process, representing the whole country and bringing the country together, that they want it to be transitional—this is a move towards democracy, not a takeover—and that they see Libya in the future not in an Islamist or tribal fashion, but as a democracy. Clearly,
	it will have Islamic elements—it is a Muslim country—but that is the path that its people want to take and one that we can encourage them down.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially in relation to the Gibson inquiry, which could be critical to our future good relations with the new Libya. Will it be able to consider the role and case of the old regime’s intelligence chief, Musa Kusa?

David Cameron: Musa Kusa is helping the police with their inquiries into, for instance, the Yvonne Fletcher case, and they will go on having conversations with him. That will go ahead. Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry can go wherever the evidence leads, and he can call for papers that he wants to see. The key things that he is looking at are the accusations of complicity in torture, rendition, malpractice or maltreatment.

Pete Wishart: We in the Scottish National party join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the brave men and women in our armed forces who have been involved in these operations. We also welcome the extension of Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, but does the Prime Minister believe that it will be enough to get to the bottom of these allegations of such truly awful and reprehensible acts? Will he, for example, be able to interview former Labour Ministers and ask what they knew about those operations? Will he also be able to make some sort of judgment about the activities and actions of the last Labour Government?

David Cameron: As I said, what Sir Peter Gibson will be able to do is call for papers and people, and question people about the decisions that they took. He is looking into accusations of complicity in mistreatment, rendition or torture, and all those things, and if Ministers, whether in the last Government or not, have questions to answer, they will then need to answer those questions. That is the correct way for these things to be done.

John Baron: What does the Prime Minister believe to be the lessons from our intervention when it comes to any possible future interventions, given that the Arab League contains countries such as Syria and that we as a country refused to help the citizens of Yemen and Bahrain?

David Cameron: As I said in my statement, I do not subscribe to this idea that because we cannot fix every problem in the world, we should not fix any problem in the world. It seemed to me that, in a totally practical way, here was a problem that we had a moral obligation to try to deal with because we could prevent a massacre—as well as, if you like, an “ought”, there was also a “could”. We were able to do this because we had the support of Arab nations, because we had NATO behind us and because we convinced the UN Security Council to vote for it. When “ought” and “can” come together, there is a pretty good case for action.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister has spoken of hope across the wider region following events in Libya. Will both the premium that he and
	other international leaders have put on inclusion and consensus in building constitutions and states, and the primacy of democratic elections also be reflected in their response to the current efforts of the Palestinian Authority in respect of statehood, given that this month is the target date when statehood was to be recognised at the UN?

David Cameron: As I said earlier, I see all these issues as being linked. Just as we want to see greater democracy, peace and progress in middle eastern countries across the board, so we want to see the Palestinians have the dignity of their own state. However, we believe in the two-state solution, so it must be a Palestine alongside a secure Israel. When it comes to the whole issue of recognition, the test for us is: are we doing something that will help to push forward the peace process? That is the most important thing. In the end, we cannot compel Israel and Palestine to reach peace between themselves; they have to want to do it.

Andrew Tyrie: As the Prime Minister knows, I have called for several years for an inquiry into rendition, but I have to say that Sir Peter Gibson’s preparatory work is already a source of concern. Is the Prime Minister aware that he has already decided not to follow the same certification process that Lord Butler used in his inquiry to ensure that he got the right papers, that he has decided against appointing an independent investigator and that, contrary to the spirit of the reply that the Prime Minister gave me when setting up the Gibson inquiry, he will not be looking at detainee transfers in theatre? Will the Prime Minister look again at the protocol, to ensure that Sir Peter can do a proper job?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says, because he has been pursuing this issue with dogged determination over the years, and quite right too. What I would say though is that we are dealing with an inquiry that is almost entirely concerned with the security and intelligence services. This is an extremely difficult area to inquire into, and it has to be done with great sensitivity. I do not want to do anything that puts our country at risk or jeopardises the work of our security and intelligence services. I see this as a package: there was the clearing of the Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, which was vital so that the security services could get on with their work; there was the new guidance, so that our officers in the field knew what they should and should not do; and there is this inquiry to try and clear up the problems of the past. Yes, it is about uncovering any mistreatment or malpractice, which is not to be justified in any way, but it is also about enabling our security services to get on with the job of keeping us safe.

Madeleine Moon: The Prime Minister has rightly praised the professionalism, skills and ethos of the 2,300 service personnel. If Libya is to take over responsibility for its own security so that those service personnel can return to base and to other duties, will he ensure that, in financial terms, the training that we provide will help to build a new Libyan army, air force and navy that are competitive with those of other countries, so that we can pull our own service personnel back? If we can provide that training, we can build a new relationship between our armed forces.

David Cameron: Certainly we will make available our advice, services and help for the new Libya. As I have said, we must allow the Libyan people to choose what they want to do, rather than force things on them. I do not think we should have the attitude that because we have helped to liberate Libya we should therefore get some sort of automatic preferred status. We should do it on the basis of what we have to offer, and on the basis of all the normal rules and regulations that we bring to this.

Tobias Ellwood: I commend the Prime Minister’s resolve on this issue. He is right to stress that it is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but the removal of Gaddafi unearths a complex network of tribal alliances, and we are not out of the woods yet. Does my right hon. Friend agree that stability over the next few months will be critical if we are to see a role reversal in which the rebels become the state and the pro-Gaddafi tribal forces become the insurgents?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the risks involved in moving from a situation in which Gaddafi is in command to one in which he is on the run and the NTC is taking over. There are all sorts of risks, and we should not be complacent or over-confident about what will follow. All I would say is that those who warned that Libya was a country riven with tribal loyalties, divided between Benghazi and Tripoli and prone to extreme Islam have so far not been proven correct. This revolution was not about extreme Islamism; al-Qaeda played no part in it. It was about people yearning for a voice and job, and it is our duty to get behind them and help them to build that new country.

Stephen McCabe: As the Prime Minister has suggested, some of the rebels have an al-Qaeda past. We all want good relations with the new Libya, but does he agree that it is important that the House has as much information as possible about the history of those who are now assuming positions of power, so that we know exactly who we are dealing with?

David Cameron: Of course that information is valuable and, as I have said, we should not be naive and think we are dealing with just one type of people; we are dealing with all sorts of different people. Encouraging people who have a strong belief in the Muslim faith into a democratic role, rather than a violent role, is the right approach. Obviously, there are concerns about where that can lead, but when we look at a country such as Turkey, whose Government have some pedigree out of Muslim politics, we see that that can be compatible with a very successful democracy.

Rehman Chishti: The international community has come to the conclusion that the Assad regime in Syria has become an illegitimate regime, and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have withdrawn their ambassadors from Syria. How far away are we from reaching that conclusion?

David Cameron: I think we should act with others, and in a way that maximises our influence. What has happened among Arab countries, including their progressive
	recognition that Assad is illegitimate and cannot now take his country forward, is very important, but we still have not got to a position where there is unanimity about that across the Arab world, or indeed in the United Nations itself.

William Bain: Although Libya is the second richest African nation in terms of gross domestic product per capita, it suffers from unemployment rates in excess of 30%. Will the Prime Minister tell us how the international community will be able to help the new Libyan Government to develop a more knowledge-based economy and to increase Libya’s share of trade with the European Union and its other major trading partners?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are trying to change the entire European neighbourhood policy to make it much more about market access and trade, and in some ways we have been successful. If those north African countries traded as much with each other and with the EU as European countries do, they would have far higher levels of GDP and much more balanced economies. The exciting thing about Libya is that, because of its oil wealth and its relative size, it can be an economic success story. For too many countries, oil has been a curse rather than a blessing, but Libya has this opportunity to make a new start and to put those oil revenues to good use.

Andrew Bridgen: The Prime Minister has indicated that the British Government is planning to play a role in the vital training of the new military forces of the new Libyan Government. Will the resources allocated to this task be greater or less than those allocated by the previous Labour Government in the training of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces, which enabled him better to repress his own people?

David Cameron: That is an ingenious question. The point is that we should wait and see what it is the Libyans want us to do. We clearly have strong capabilities in the training of armed forces and police forces, in advising on having an independent judiciary and the like, and I believe we should make these available and see what the Libyans want. Training the police forces of other countries is a difficult issue. In getting into it, one is often accused of helping a regime that might not be perfect in every sense, but if we do not do it, we lose the opportunity to explain some of the finer points of independent policing and respect for human rights. This is a very difficult issue that we have not yet got right.

Nick Raynsford: The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that President Assad of Syria has lost all legitimacy, that he should stand aside and that the violence must end. At the same time, the Prime Minister recognises that there is not yet the degree of international agreement necessary to give effect to those expressions of intent. Will he tell us more about what he and his Government are doing to try to build international agreement to the level where it becomes possible to force President Assad to pay attention to
	what the right hon. Gentleman described in respect of Libya as the moral imperative of stopping the slaughter of civilians?

David Cameron: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a series of permanent conversations, particularly those that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is having. At the European level, there is a high degree of unity—in some ways, I think the EU has led the way, particularly with the oil embargo—but we also need to have, and are having, strong discussions with the permanent members of the Security Council. The right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned Russia, which I shall be visiting soon. We also need discussions with the non-permanent members like South Africa and others, and more widely, including with the Arab League, so that we build international support. There is no substitute for a lot of hard work and diplomacy to try to build the strongest possible coalition.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend’s actions, saving many lives in Libya, have been totally vindicated. So that the National Transitional Council is not overwhelmed with offers of help, who will take the lead in reconstruction in Libya and precisely what role will this country play?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. The key is building up—and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has been key to this—a Libyan-led and Libyan-owned plan for transition. It is Libya’s plan—we have assisted and helped to co-ordinate, but it is the Libyans’ plan; others can then slot into it. It has been interesting to hear what they want—not always the things that one might expect. The biggest single demand made in Paris was for temporary classrooms, because so many schools had been used by Gaddafi’s forces, and for some temporary housing. We will fit into these requests, but it is a Libyan-led plan.

Andrew Love: I understand that it is indeed early days for the new Libya, but will the Prime Minister say a little more about the discussions about unfreezing assets? While there is justifiably a need and an urgency to distribute these assets, there are also some concerns about whether they will go to the correct places and whether the concerns expressed around the Chamber will come to fruition, as they might be affected by these assets. Will the Prime Minister say a little more about the discussions so far?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. What we are doing at the moment is taking through parts of unfreezing assets on an ad hoc basis through the UN Security Council. We were able to unfreeze the Libyan dinars printed by De La Rue in this country, and we can now distribute them back to the Libyan people. As for making sure that they are properly received, as I said in my statement there should be a proper accounting and transparency initiative in Libya. As for a more general asset release, we need a new UN resolution, and we are pushing for it, but we do not want to lose what we have at the moment, which is a
	UN resolution that enables the NATO mission to go on protecting civilians. It is a balance: we want to get both those things so that the assets can be unfrozen more broadly.

Ben Wallace: The last Government consistently told us that the whole reason for working more closely with Libya was the agreement reached in 2003 on weapons of mass destruction. Following the collapse of the Gaddafi regime, we now see that Gaddafi kept hardly any part of that agreement. He hoarded massive stocks of chemical weapons in order continually to brutalise and ignore human rights. Does the Prime Minister not think it rather odd that the last Government knew that all along, but for eight years continued to increase co-operation with the Libyans?

David Cameron: That is an important point. Hopefully, with a new Government in Libya, we shall be able to see how much of the agreement over weapons of mass destruction was kept. It is concerning that there are still large supplies of unweaponised mustard gas, on which the international community and, now, the NTC must keep a close eye, but, as I have said, when the new Government get their feet under the table, we may find out more.

Toby Perkins: Glapwell Contracting Services in my constituency was in the process of completing a contract with the Libyan oil industry when the uprising started. The failure of that contract to reach completion caused significant financial problems for the company, and it has taken me more than two months to get the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to me. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he will be able to secure any support for the British businesses that are in the middle of contracts with Libya, and what weight he will be able to put behind that?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I think it will help that not only do we now have a mission in Benghazi, but our ambassador will be becoming established in Tripoli. There will be full support for that, and companies such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents in his constituency will be able to contact the embassy, which will be able to help with the contract.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership throughout this episode, but may I press him on the issue of cost? What is the latest Treasury estimate of the cost of British intervention in Libya? Given that some $15 billion of assets are about to be unfrozen, given that Libya is an oil-rich nation, and given that the Arab League wanted us to become involved, surely it is not unreasonable to ask for at least a contribution to the cost that the British taxpayer incurred in freeing the country.

David Cameron: That is an entirely reasonable point. So far the cost of our contribution to operations has been £120 million. The cost of spent munitions is in excess of that figure—I think around £140 million. Clearly Britain has spent money to help the Libyan people to free themselves, and, as my hon. Friend says, Libya is a wealthy country. We have had not had
	conversations about that to date, but I am sure that those are matters we can take into account for the future.

Sajid Javid: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership role played by him and his team, but does he agree that this is ultimately a Libyan and not a foreign triumph?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made the important point that this would not have happened without the Libyan people. They took the initiative, although we were able to help them. I think it important to the future development of the country for young Libyans in the future to learn about the incredibly heroic things that their fathers and grandfathers did. This was something that the Libyans did for themselves rather than our doing it for them, and—in terms of their history, their pride, and what I hope they will build in their country—that will be fantastically important for the future.

Mike Hancock: Bearing in mind the widespread media interest in the whereabouts of Musa Kusa, can the Prime Minister confirm that he is still in the United Kingdom? If Musa Kusa is not in the United Kingdom, what part did the Prime Minister play in letting him leave, and how can our intelligence services be expected to debrief him properly?

David Cameron: I believe that Musa Kusa is currently in Doha, where he has spent quite a lot of time, but I understand that he is co-operating fully with the police inquiry and has been questioned by the police. No special or sweetheart deals were done in respect of Musa Kusa, and, as I have said, I hope that the police investigation will continue.

Bob Stewart: The act of surrendering is probably the most dangerous thing that a combatant has to do. How can we encourage the forces of the NTC to act within the rules of war, and specifically within the Geneva convention? If they do, the remnants of Gaddafi’s forces will be encouraged to surrender more quickly, and there will be less loss of life.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this matter, and he is right to make that point. I have been impressed by the fact that the Free Libya Forces have extended the deadline for Gaddafi forces to surrender. Of course, there have been reports of abuse on all sides, although the Gaddafi war crimes put everything else into perspective. On the whole, however, it has been remarkable how the Free Libya forces have tried to behave properly and to integrate people who want to give up and reconcile.

Alec Shelbrooke: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his work in going to the UN before any military action was taken in Libya? I reiterate to him that a constituent of mine fled Libya. They were full of nothing but praise. They were from Benghazi and, having been a British citizen originally, they were in fear of their life following the threats that Gaddafi made.
	Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that the Government’s policy will continue to be that no military action will take place anywhere in the world unless it is through the UN or NATO? Will he bear that in mind when recent reports from the US about the possible nuclear aspirations of Iran come into the debate?

David Cameron: I hear absolutely what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that I can entirely give that assurance. I think it is important that Britain is able to act in self-defence, and sometimes there is not time to go to the UN or NATO, so I do not believe in giving that sort of assurance. On this issue, however, I think it was right to go to the UN, right to act with allies and right to bring together Arab partners to work with us. At all times, one should try to build the broadest alliances.

Mark Menzies: The Prime Minister has already recognised the game-changing role that the RAF and the Typhoon Eurofighter played. Will he join me in recognising the work played by civilians and non-uniform personnel in keeping that aircraft flying and in service at all times?

David Cameron: I am delighted to do that. As I say, the Tornado performed magnificently in the skies above Libya, but the Typhoon did, too. That is a tribute to the pilots, the ground staff and ground crew, but also to all those involved in manufacturing and maintaining that aircraft. Touching the wood of the Dispatch Box, I think that those airplanes and their crews have performed very well.

Alok Sharma: I too congratulate the Prime Minister on leading the international effort in Libya. May I say that it is rather refreshing finally to have a Prime Minister who leads from the front? Will he give us a few more details on the humanitarian aid that Britain and the international community are providing and are planning to provide, which will be incredibly important in the days, weeks and months ahead?

David Cameron: I am happy to do that. We have helped through the ICRC to provide medical assistance to 5,000 people. We have provided food for, I believe, around 700,000 people. We are working with others to provide water as well. On the humanitarian situation, we have always been ready to do more. The planning carried out by the Department for International Development has been first class. The needs have not always been as great as predicted, because the Libyans have responded themselves relatively rapidly to deal with shortages and problems.

Jason McCartney: A lot of lessons have been learned, such as not helping the sons of dictators with their university coursework, but one of the key elements of the success has been the role of the Arab League, particularly the role played by nations such as Qatar with their special forces. Will the Prime Minister implore the Arab League to take strong action and to condemn what is happening in Syria?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Secretary General of the Arab League is going to Damascus. It has been a great moment for the
	Arab League. The role that the Emiratis, the Qataris and the Jordanians played made a lot of these things possible. We should also reassess how we work with those countries and what more we can do in training and working together, because that has been very successful on this occasion.

Stephen Hammond: I join colleagues who have praised the military effort and the clarity of the Prime Minister’s purpose. He is of course right to say that this was a Libyan civil uprising and a Libyan triumph, but does he agree that one of the consequences of the international action in the civil uprising was that many more civilian lives were saved than might have otherwise been so? The fact that the international community was prepared to take a role shows other countries where there are aspirant democracies against dictators that we will play an appropriate role if required.

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I hope that dictators throughout the world will have taken note of what has happened and recognise that the long arm of international law can have, as I put it earlier, a long reach and a long memory. I also pay tribute to our armed forces and all those responsible for targeting for the huge work that was done to try to avoid civilian casualties and to avoid damaging civilian infrastructure. One of the reasons that parts of Libya are getting back to work, I hope relatively quickly, is that a lot of the civilian infrastructure was left untouched.

Julian Brazier: I too congratulate the Prime Minister both on his role throughout this conflict and the cautious way forward he has charted. Does he agree that Israel falling out with its old ally Turkey shortly after the awful border problems with Egypt is not making life any easier for the moderate voices in the Arab League and those who want to move the region forward?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to encourage Israel to work with all its moderate friends and allies for a safe and secure future, and obviously that is more difficult when relations between Israel and Turkey are more challenged.

David Morris: It is refreshing to see a Prime Minister leading from the front, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) said, but I am very concerned about the Yvonne Fletcher investigation. Will the Prime Minister assure me that all avenues will be followed to bring the perpetrator of this crime to book?

David Cameron: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why I raised the case personally with Prime Minister Jibril at the Paris conference. I would just say that I think it is important that we allow this new Government to get their feet under the table in
	Tripoli before pressing the case a huge amount further. This is a police investigation too, and I would urge the Metropolitan police to do what they can to push the investigation forward and work with the new Libyan authorities.

Stephen Metcalfe: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, and as we have heard this afternoon, a number of businesses, including some in my constituency, have been seriously adversely affected by the conflict in Libya, leaving them with large unpaid bills. Will he agree to do all he can, through whatever reasonable channels there are, to put pressure on the NTC to pay those bills as soon as possible, to protect British jobs and companies—and perhaps also work in future with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to put in place a system that protects companies that do business in some of these more volatile countries?

David Cameron: Obviously, the Government cannot stand behind every contract that every individual firm enters into anywhere in the world, but I completely understand why my hon. Friend feels strongly on behalf of his constituents, and that is why we have embassies around the world, and why we will now have a new ambassador in Tripoli, Dominic Asquith, and a new team around him that will be able to make progress on all such issues that hon. Members raise.

Gareth Johnson: I agree with the Prime Minister that we should not rush to judgment on some of these issues, but does he agree that it is at least questionable for the last Government to have sent UK police officers to Libya to train Gaddafi’s forces when those responsible for WPC Fletcher’s murder were still at large?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me say again that I think it was right to re-form a relationship with Libya when it gave up weapons of mass destruction, but we had to do that in the right way, and I do not believe we made enough progress on issues such as the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and I also do not think that the al-Megrahi case was handled in the right way.

Henry Smith: Five years ago, the then Government invited two of Gaddafi’s sons to visit SAS headquarters, which I think was quite appalling. What lessons can we learn about the appeasing of abusive dictatorships?

David Cameron: I have a feeling that if they invited him again, they might treat him rather differently this time. As I have said: it is right to have a new relationship but wrong to be quite so gullible in how that was carried out—and, for all the reasons that have been given, I also think that helping to complete PhD theses is probably not a role Ministers should enter into in respect of other countries.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has recently been reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that the same sentence ought to be imposed on a rioter committing a criminal act in the context of the riots as on an individual criminal committing the same act by itself. Given that magistrates have admirably been imposing exemplary sentences, can you, Mr Speaker, tell the House whether we can expect a statement from a Justice Minister on whether the Government support the DPP’s view or the view of the magistrates and, indeed, the British people?

Mr Speaker: Experience has suggested to me that it is unwise for me to expect anything—and I have expected so far nothing from a Minister on this matter. I have received no notification, no hint, no twitch of an eyebrow, no signal otherwise. I hope I satisfy the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) who, in the process of making his point, has alerted none other than the Prime Minister to what he believes is its force and significance.
	We come now to the main business—[ Interruption. ] The Whip on duty is ahead of himself, and we are grateful to him. What I was going to say, and will now do so, is that the Clerk will now—[ Interruption. ] Whips are usually behind the curve. Something has happened and they are doing better today, almost too well. [ Interruption. ] It is the effect of the holiday of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), as he pertinently observes from a sedentary position.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

[Relevant documents: The Sixteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, HC 1432.]
	Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers

‘(1) Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers expire at the end of 5 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument—
	(a) repeal the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers;
	(b) at any time revive the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers for a period not exceeding 5 years;
	(c) provide that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers—
	(i) are not to expire at the time when they would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an order under this subsection; but
	(ii) are to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding 5 years.
	(3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) the independent reviewer appointed for the purposes of section 20;
	(b) the Intelligence Services Commissioner; and
	(c) the Director-General of the Security Service.
	(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an order that contains a declaration by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the approval required by that subsection.
	(6) An order that contains such a declaration—
	(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
	(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
	(7) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (6), that does not—
	(a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the order; or
	(b) prevent the making of a new order to the same or similar effect.
	(8) In this section—
	“40 days” means 40 days computed as provided for in section 7(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946;
	“Secretary of State’s TPIM powers” means—
	(a) the power to impose a TPIM notice under section2;(b) the power to extend a TPIM notice under section5(2);(c) the power to vary a TPIM notice under section12(1)(c); and(d) the power to revive a TPIM notice under section13(6) to (9).’.—
	(James Brokenshire.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 4—Section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision.
	New clause 7—Annual renewal
	‘(1) Except in so far as otherwise provided under this Clause, Clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act will expire at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—
	(a) repeal Clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act; or
	(b) provide that Clause 2 will not expire at the time when it would otherwise expire under subsection (1) of this Clause but will continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.
	(3) Before making an order under subsection (2)(b) of this Clause the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a) the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation;
	(b) the police; and
	(c) the security services.
	(4) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this Clause unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) Subsection (4) of this Clause does not apply to an order that contains a declaration by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the approval required by subsection (4).
	(6) An order under this Clause that contains such a declaration—
	(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
	(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
	(7) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (6), that does not—
	(a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the order; or
	(b) prevent the making of a new order to the same or similar effect.’.
	Government amendments 11 and 13.
	Amendment 8,page15,line41, clause 27, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert ‘will come into force on 1 January 2013’.
	Amendment 20,page15,line41, clause 27, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert ‘will come into force the day after the Home Secretary reports to Parliament to confirm that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) below have been complied with—
	(a) no later than one month after the day on which this Act is passed, the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism will produce a report to the Home Secretary detailing the additional required resources (“required resources”) that will be needed to manage the increased risks arising from the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the passing of this Act;
	(b) no later than two months after the day on which this Act is passed the Home Secretary will agree with the
	Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism the required resources under paragraph (a) and the timetable for such required resources becoming deployable for use in implementing and managing measures relating to TPIM notices;
	(c) this Act cannot come into force until the required resources as agreed under paragraph (b) above are made available and ready for deployment.’.

James Brokenshire: In starting our consideration of the Bill, we will be reflecting on a number of points and issues that were debated in Committee. I look forward to continuing some of the debates that we had with Members who were part of that Committee, and to other Members joining today’s consideration.
	This group contains two related but distinct sets of amendments. The first deals with expiry and renewal of the legislation, and the second with its commencement. On expiry and renewal, the Government new clauses and amendments return to an important matter that was raised on Second Reading and in Committee: the duration of the Bill’s provisions and whether they should be subject to any form of sunset or renewal.
	A number of arguments have been advanced. The Government previously set out their view that the Bill is the product of a lengthy and considered review, that it makes significant improvements to the control orders system, and that it establishes a framework that ought to be able to operate stably and effectively on a permanent basis. The point has been well made that we are legislators, and that we are fully competent to review the necessity of legislation, and to amend or repeal it if it is no longer necessary or if changes are needed. However, it has also been argued with some force that the nature of the powers in the Bill makes some form of regular review appropriate, both to reflect the weighty responsibility on Parliament when it accords the Government such powers, and to focus minds on the need to ensure that the legislation remains in force only as long as is necessary.

Pat McFadden: If this Bill is the product of a long and considered review, why did the Government think it necessary to publish an alternative Bill last Thursday night?

James Brokenshire: I will come to that point during consideration of further amendments, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Government’s counter-terrorism review—which specifically contemplated the necessity of enhanced measures, should exceptional circumstances require them—and to the specific paragraphs and references in that review. That is why I have said that the product of this legislation has been subject to that careful consideration.

Keith Vaz: I believe that this is the hon. Gentleman’s first time at the Dispatch Box with his new responsibilities as counter-terrorism Minister, so may I congratulate him on his appointment and on taking on that portfolio?
	I am concerned about Lord Macdonald’s role in the Government’s latest suggestions. He was their reviewer of counter-terrorism policy, he produced a report and there were differences between him and the Government on a number of important points. Has he had the
	opportunity to comment on the Bill? Has the Home Secretary spoken to him about the substance of what is before the House today?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Lord Macdonald produced a separate report alongside the counter-terrorism review document to which I have alluded. That analysis and ancillary documentation fitted alongside the review, which was published earlier this year. We will deal in further detail with the points I made about the Bill’s provisions and with the concept of the need for exceptional emergency measures when we discuss the second group of amendments.

Keith Vaz: rose—

James Brokenshire: I am sorry if I have not satisfied the right hon. Gentleman’s inquiries.

Keith Vaz: The Minister usually satisfies them, but on this occasion he has not. What was Lord Macdonald’s role in these new proposals? Has he had an opportunity to look at them and comment on them? That is all I wish to find out.

James Brokenshire: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the foreword to Lord Macdonald’s report said that he was invited
	“to provide independent oversight of the Review”.
	That is the role that he conducted. He was asked to
	“ensure that it is properly conducted, that all the relevant options have been considered and the recommendations are balanced.”
	That was the role he was required to carry out in the counter-terrorism review, which, obviously, led to the preparation of this Bill.

Julian Huppert: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way one further time and then I will make some progress.

Julian Huppert: I am not comfortable with the draft Bill, but will the Minister accept my congratulations on moving the Government forward from the position set out in comments made by his former colleague, Baroness Neville-Jones? She said that this emergency power would be discussed only with the Opposition and would not be scrutinised by Parliament, so will he accept my congratulations on moving to a much more democratic process?

James Brokenshire: We have made it clear that the draft Bill will be subject to review and scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the House, and we believe that to be the right way forward.
	Let me return to the new clauses in this group. We have carefully considered the various debates in Committee on the length and duration of the Bill. An amendment was tabled that would have introduced an annual renewal of the powers, equivalent to that currently contained in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in relation to control orders. An amendment with the same effect is before us today as new clause 7. Members of the Committee will recall that we had a helpful debate and that I made a commitment to consider the matter further and return to it. I thank the hon. Member for
	Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and other members of the Committee for the manner in which that discussion was held and for the points made. In line with that commitment, I reflected carefully on those points, noted the feelings and introduced new clauses 3 and 4. They specify that the operative powers under the Bill will expire after five years, unless they are renewed by the Secretary of State, by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	There would also be an order-making power to repeal the powers or to revive them when they had been allowed to expire without their having been renewed. We consider that that approach strikes the right balance. It ensures that there will be a statutory requirement regularly to review the need for the legislation and each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate it in the context of the situation at the time and to take its own view. We do not believe, however, that such a review is necessary annually.
	The requirement for a review every five years, rather than every single year, as with control orders, seems to us to strike the right balance. It will avoid what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to on Second Reading as
	“the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 84-85.]
	The Bill will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, according to the usual timetable, which will allow such a settled position to be reached. That is in contrast to the control orders legislation that it replaces, which was pushed through with little opportunity for debate, making annual renewal an appropriate safeguard—but one that we do not believe is necessary for this Bill.
	Renewal every five years therefore provides an appropriately balanced approach. It reflects not only the seriousness with which we take these powers and the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that they do not remain in force longer than necessary but the competence of this House and the other place to apply intense scrutiny to legislation and to arrive at a position that will not need to be reviewed annually. It also recognises the sustained nature of the threat and the fact that, sadly, these measures are likely to continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for giving way and for accepting the idea I floated in Committee. Will he give me some reassurance that if in five years’ time he and his party are part of the Government they will approach the question in the spirit of carrying out a full review, as this Government did? That would enable detailed analysis and preparation before any further votes were taken.

James Brokenshire: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one Parliament cannot bind another. It would not be appropriate for me to suggest or require that a future Government act in a particular way when addressing such points. It would be reasonable and appropriate, however, to consider these matters carefully and in a measured and appropriate way, examining the security issues at that point in time in the same way as this Government sought to do in our counter-terrorism review, which led to the creation of this Bill. We consider
	that a five-year renewal period, allowing each Parliament the opportunity to take a view on this important issue, strikes the right balance.

Richard Fuller: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in welcoming this measure. May I probe the Minister a little further on the spirit of the renewal every five years? Will he give some guidance about whether, in his view, we should have a thorough and complete review of these measures every five years rather than sending them through on the nod for another five years, saying that they seem to be working? Many of us would have liked to have seen the Government go further to undo some of the damage done by the previous Government and it is important that we hear whether the Minister anticipates the review every five years to be more thorough than the annual on-the-nod review.

James Brokenshire: As I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge, I would certainly anticipate a considered review of counter-terrorism powers when the time arrived. That would be the appropriate way to proceed and to examine the renewal. The time period will also allow further and broader consideration of the security position at that point and of what measures might be required, necessary and appropriate to deal with the risks, challenges and issues that face our country.
	I do not wish to detain the House, but I should explain briefly that amendments 11 and 13 make necessary technical changes to clauses 19 and 20 in consequence of Government new clauses 3 and 4. Amendment 11 ensures that the Secretary of State is not under a nugatory duty to report on the exercise of her powers under the Bill at a time when her powers have expired or been repealed. Similarly, amendment 13 ensures that the independent reviewer is not under a duty to report on the operation of the Act for periods when the operative powers are not in force.
	Amendments 8 and 20, which were tabled by the Opposition, relate to when the Bill may come into force —currently, the day after it receives Royal Assent. It has been suggested, and I have consistently and strongly refuted such suggestions, that the police and the Security Service will not be ready to implement the new system when the Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent because the additional investigative resources that will complement the new system will not be in place. On that basis, and on the basis of wider suggestions that the powers under the new system will be insufficient to protect the public, it has also been suggested that the new system should not be introduced before the 2012 Olympics.

Hazel Blears: Does the Minister recall that when Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne gave evidence to the Committee, he said:
	“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires”?—[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation  Measures  Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.]
	Clearly, the Minister is rejecting DAC Osborne’s evidence that it will take more than a year to get the agents trained to have the necessary skills and to get the
	electronic equipment that will be required to meet the increased risk that will inevitably be caused by the Bill. Does he believe that Mr Osborne is entirely incorrect?

James Brokenshire: I will certainly come to that point because it is at the crux of the amendments relating to this part of the Bill and to the points that the right hon. Lady and other right hon. and hon. Members made in Committee. The Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices when they become effective. During the summer I had a number of conversations with the Metropolitan Police Service and I went to see the team that has responsibility for managing those who are subject to control orders and for managing terrorists who have been released from prison and are subsequently being managed. It has been very humbling to see the work that they do on a weekly basis to ensure that we are all properly protected. I have spoken personally to those who will be involved in managing the transition and the new regime. I cannot go into detail about the plans that are at hand, but I assure the House that I have been impressed by the range of excellent work that is under way. I reiterate that the Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices when that change takes place.

Hazel Blears: I have no doubt that the Metropolitan Police Service is doing everything it can to try to ensure the risk to the public is properly managed—it would absolutely be committed to doing that. However, we have on record DAC Osborne’s evidence to the Committee that it would take more than a year to get these resources into place. If the Minister is now saying that the Metropolitan police have revised their view and that it will not take a year, may we have something similar in writing, as evidence, for all Members who are concerned about these matters, so that we can see that DAC Osborne’s original statement was incorrect?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Lady has consistently made this point and we debated this issue at length in Committee, but I have been quite clear to the House about the statements that the Metropolitan Police Service has made to the Home Office. It has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices. I am being quite specific and explicit in relation to that and the work that has been undertaken to prepare for that transition. Although I accept the points that the right hon. Lady has made, I have been quite clear about the assurances that we have gained in that regard and, similarly, the work that the Security Service has developed in its detailed plans for its additional allocation over the next four years, which it too is implementing.

Shabana Mahmood: The Minister will recall from Committee that one of the issues regarding additional resources was the fact that we are talking not just about money but about the extra surveillance officers who will be required to meet the increased risk under the TPIMs regime, which did not exist under control orders because we had relocation and longer curfews. DAC Osborne was clear that it
	takes about a year to train the extra surveillance officers. Will the Minister explain how that will be truncated and how the training will now take less than a year?

James Brokenshire: Let me make it clear that the additional resources are not simply about providing additional human surveillance capacity. The police and Security Service will use the additional money to enhance their use of a range of covert investigative techniques, including human and technical surveillance. It is not simply about that one point. Although I am unable to go into the detail of the preparations that are in hand, the police service and the Security Service have been engaged in work to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to provide us with the assurance that the TPIMs regime will work as we intend, so that we as a Government can fulfil our responsibilities and provide assurances on this important point.

Gerry Sutcliffe: This crucial point came up in Committee. I understand what the Minister is saying. He sought reassurances from the Met, as we would expect, but we had the evidence of DAC Osborne. If the process is to work, surely we should have before us a letter of confirmation from the Met stating what the Minister is telling us and assuring us that the Met have revised their position as set out in DAC Osborne’s evidence to the Committee, and that they are happy with that. I fully respect the Minister’s word and I understand what he is saying, but for the benefit of the process that should be put in writing from the Met to the Committee or to the House.

James Brokenshire: I have made clear the assurances that we have received. I know how the hon. Gentleman approaches these matters, and we have had numerous debates on numerous issues over the years. We have sought assurance. In preparing the Bill and the change to current practice, the Government have proceeded by seeking to assure ourselves that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the risk posed by those who are suspected of being involved in terrorism but cannot be deported or prosecuted. As I have said consistently in relation to TPIMs, the legislation and the enhanced capabilities that the police and the Security Service will have ensure that there is a balanced package of measures that will operate as we intend. We are satisfied that the preparations in hand will lead to the changes envisaged by the Bill following Royal Assent.

Paul Goggins: I commend the Minister for the visit that he made to the Metropolitan police, but his assurances this afternoon go nowhere near far enough. Since his visit to the Metropolitan police, has he had a chance or has his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister about the matter? On 11 August, when Parliament was recalled, I asked the Prime Minister to consider delaying or preferably cancelling the new provisions, particularly in relation to relocation. The Prime Minister said:
	“I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1074.]
	I have not had a chance to speak to the Prime Minister about that, but I am sure the Minister has. Will he update us?

James Brokenshire: I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman had that exchange with the Prime Minister and has subsequently written to him. He raised the point in a fair and balanced way and, from my reading of the record, the Prime Minister said that he would look carefully and closely at what he said. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have looked carefully and closely at what he said, but the approach that we are taking is as I have set out in relation to the Bill and as I set out this afternoon.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that we cannot provide detailed breakdowns of what money we provide for specific security activities. This could provide detailed information about our capabilities and techniques, which could undermine national security. But the Government continue to consider that the TPIMs regime and the additional resources for the police and Security Service for covert investigation provide an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates the risks that we face. Indeed, the additional resources for covert investigative techniques could increase the opportunities for the collection of evidence that may be used in a prosecution.
	It would be irresponsible of the Government to introduce the new system when it was not safe to do so. I am sure that there is absolute consensus on that, and I appreciate that the proposed changes are intended to ensure that the Government are not able to take such a risk with public safety, but I have been clear in what I have said and about the assurances that we have obtained, and, on the introduction of the new regime, the Government would not take such a risk if they were not satisfied about the steps and approaches being taken by the Metropolitan Police Service and Security Service.
	I have moved new clause 3, and I look forward to further debate about the other new clauses and amendments.

Shabana Mahmood: May I welcome the Minister formally to his place? It is a pleasure to continue on Report the debate that we had in Committee.
	I shall speak to new clause 7 and amendment 20, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s movement in relation to the introduction of new clause 3 and new clause 4, which, as he explained, envisages a five-year sunset clause and moves us somewhat further on than did our debate in Committee.
	New clause 7 would replicate the position under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which brought in the control order regime, and the amendment would limit to 12 months the powers under the TPIMs regime and would, therefore, require their annual renewal by Parliament.
	Our new clause began in Committee as an amendment, which I moved, and was based on oral evidence given in Committee by Liberty, Justice and others. It was introduced to reflect our concerns that the Government’s legislation will mean fewer checks and balances on what are exceptional measures. Many in the House agree that they are undesirable and in an ideal world we would not have to have them, but they have proved necessary, given the serious terrorist risks that we face.
	I do not often agree with Liberty, particularly on control orders, because our starting points for the debate are different, but I was struck by its evidence in Committee, when the organisation made it clear that it would rather—to be fair to Shami Chakrabarti, she said that she would choke on these words—take existing control orders, with their annual renewal, meaning a 12-month limit on their power, over the new TPIMs regime. The reasons why—and why I agree with that position—primarily relate to the importance of bringing such exceptional measures back to the House for regular, annual review and, if Parliament deems it appropriate, for renewal.

Richard Fuller: I was not on the Committee, but in the evidence I noted Lord Carlile’s comments about the point of annual renewal. He said that
	“annual renewal has been a bit of a fiction, to be frank,”
	and went on to issue a challenge, stating that
	Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and decide whether it wants a regime like this or not.”—[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 23-24, Q70.]
	How does the hon. Lady square that with her view of annual reviews?

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to Lord Carlile’s evidence in Committee. He clearly did not think that annual renewal was needed, but recent developments, in particular the introduction of the Government’s draft Bill four days ago, make annual renewal even more necessary than before. I will turn shortly to the reasons why.

Julian Huppert: May I ask the hon. Lady the same question that I asked the Minister? If the measures before us are passed and there is a five-yearly cycle, and if the Government then include her and her party, will she commit to a full and proper review of the entire counter-terror strategy, as this Government have?

Shabana Mahmood: I am afraid that I have to give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that the Minister gave, which is that obviously one Parliament cannot constrain another. I imagine that most new Governments would want to look carefully and responsibly at what are exceptional measures. We have all stated on many occasions that in an ideal world we would not need these powers. The risk is developing all the time and I would hope that any Government would keep these matters under continual review, rather than just saying that they will do it every five years. I think that that clearly sets out our position.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in my hon. Friend’s answer. Does she not think that we should move in the direction of using criminal law in all cases, rather than going down this endless route of special legislation? I have been in this House long enough to have voted against most of these pieces of legislation, starting with the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. I did so because it departed from the criminal law and essentially involved the executive powers of Ministers, which I am sure she will agree is a dangerous thing.

Shabana Mahmood: Wherever possible, we should clearly proceed down the criminal justice system route. If that is available in the irreducible minimum number of cases that we have, it should be pursued. I expect the police and responsible prosecutors to ensure that prosecutions take place wherever possible. I think that all Members on both sides of the House share the view that it is far better that individuals involved in terrorism-related activity are prosecuted, convicted and banged up. However, there are cases where it is not possible to convert the evidence that we have, which is intelligence based, into evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. For those cases, it is necessary to have a different system to deal with the risk. If we could avoid being in that position, of course we would, but it is just not possible because of the nature of the evidence and the intelligence sources that it relies on. I am afraid to say that it will not always be possible to resort to the criminal justice system and that a different kind of system for dealing with this risk is therefore necessary.

Mark Field: I have immense sympathy with the views that have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Equally, I have some sympathy with the notion that we should look at this legislation on a more regular basis. However, the hon. Lady has not addressed the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) a moment ago. The reality is that with Northern Ireland terrorism before 2005, the annual reviews were entirely a fiction and the powers went through on the nod. I have some sympathy with the Minister’s view that a five-yearly review allows for a proper review, provided that the safeguards are in place. Although an annual review might sound like better protection on the face of it, it becomes largely a fiction.

Shabana Mahmood: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would describe parliamentary debate and holding the Government to account as a fiction. I do not think that having an annual debate is a fiction. It is important that we give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to hold the Government to account, to review how the powers have been used throughout a particular year, and to take a view on whether the risk is such that we still need an exceptional system of rules outside the criminal justice system. I do not believe that those debates are a fiction.

David Davis: Does the hon. Lady accept that using intelligence-based evidence, such as evidence obtained under torture, evidence from foreign countries or unchecked intercept evidence, leads to a greater chance of a miscarriage of justice? The reason I raise that point now is that we did not once, in the course of all the so-called reviews of the control order legislation, hear about any miscarriages of justice. Of course, there were several, as was demonstrated by the courts.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In the end, we must accept that there is an irreducible minimum number of cases in which the intelligence tells us that a serious risk is posed by an individual and they have to be dealt with, but they cannot be brought within the criminal justice system.
	We must accept that we need a system for mitigating that risk and for bringing those individuals under some form of control to prevent them from attack planning, which might lead to the loss of innocent lives.

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. I was interested in her answer to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about alternatives. Does she agree with the shadow Home Secretary that:
	“There are cases where police bail can, of course, be used”?—[Official Report, 7 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1688.]
	Alternatively, does she prefer the line that she used in the Public Bill Committee that police bail is not the way to deal with such cases?

Shabana Mahmood: I note that the hon. Gentleman’s amendments on police bail did not make the selection list today, so we cannot continue the debate on it that was begun in Committee. I simply repeat to him the position as it was stated in Committee. There may well be some cases in which it is possible to consider whether police bail might be an answer, but I do not believe that that would be possible in the vast majority of cases. That is not the view of the experts, including the individuals who looked into the matter under the last Labour Government. That was why the control orders regime was deemed necessary.
	I also say to the hon. Gentleman that when an individual is put on police bail, it is with a view to bringing a prosecution. If that process were started in the knowledge that the intelligence could never be converted into evidence, applying for police bail would be a sham. I am not sure that many judges would let an individual get away with that.

Richard Fuller: rose —

Mark Durkan: rose —

Shabana Mahmood: I am going to make some progress. I have been quite generous, and I will take some more interventions a little later.
	On annual renewal, covered in new clause 7, there is a symbolic and practical importance to Parliament asking itself every year whether the powers that it has given the Home Secretary are still necessary and in holding the police and the Government to account for how those powers are used. That is an important measure of checks and balances. As we discussed in Committee, it also concentrates the mind. It requires the police and everybody else to consider regularly whether we truly need these powers, whether the risk is such that we cannot do without them and whether some mechanism might present itself that would enable more people to be brought within the criminal justice system rather than be kept outside it.
	Our debate in Committee featured the idea of exceptionalism—the idea that these powers are an exceptional part of our legal framework and should not be permanent. Of course, the Bill did not originally have the provisions of new clauses 3 and 4 in it, and I am grateful that the Government have made some movement and taken on board some of the arguments
	made in Committee in support of more regular review and renewal of the powers. However, I do not believe that the new clauses go far enough, or that review every five years would meet our concerns about how the Bill and the new TPIMs regime will operate in practice.
	There are a number of reasons for our concerns. The first, which the Minister touched on, is about resources. We have real concern about the additional resources that the police have said will be required under the new regime because there will be a higher risk under TPIMs. We are concerned about how they will be deployed and come on line ready for the police to use. Given that uncertainty, annual renewal and an early opportunity for Parliament to consider how the new TPIMs regime is getting on would be very welcome. It is necessary also because of the draft Bill that the Government printed only about four days ago as it would bring control order powers back into the system by way of emergency legislation. We have a number of questions about how that alternative regime may operate, which we will come to in the next group of amendments.

Julian Huppert: I am fascinated by what the hon. Lady says about her desire to review the legislation. It seems that we are perhaps talking at cross purposes about the role of a sunset clause. I would like one because I would like TPIMs to go the same way that I want control orders to go. It sounds like she wants a review so that she can bring the subject of TPIMs back up and make them more draconian. Is that why she would like a review?

Shabana Mahmood: A review is an opportunity for Parliament to take stock of how the regime has operated over the course of one year, and to decide whether it wants to give the Home Secretary those powers to use for another year. Obviously, Parliament is the right place to debate any new circumstances that bring about the need for more powers.

Hazel Blears: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way to approach such issues is to consider the balance of risk, rather than simply to adopt a fixed position, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) appears to have done? We should then consider how to get to a position in a series of steps. Clearly, the questions are these: what risk faces the nation from a terrorist threat, and what are the appropriate, proportionate powers to protect the public? That ought to be the analysis. We should not seek constantly to chip away at powers when that might expose us to a greater risk.

Shabana Mahmood: I agree with my hon. Friend on the starting point for debate. When Parliament considers such matters, it must consider the balance of risk and ask serious questions about how that risk is managed. That should always be the starting point of hon. Members as responsible parliamentarians when we consider exceptional powers that do not exist in other parts of our legal framework. We are also committed to saying that in an ideal world, we would not need such powers, but unfortunately, we are not in an ideal world—[ Interruption. ] Does the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) want to intervene?

David Davis: indicated dissent.

Shabana Mahmood: The right hon. Gentleman does not, so I shall press on.
	I spoke of the draft Bill that the Government published a few days ago, which seeks to introduce control order powers by way of emergency legislation. That Bill, which we will discuss at length shortly, raises many questions, and an early opportunity for Parliament to take stock of the operation, implementation, practice and working of that regime will be welcome.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. The question that I should like to ask is from the perspective of the people who are under control orders and similar restrictions. Such people have not been brought to trial and no evidence has been presented to them to substantiate the reasons why they are under such restrictions. She is advocating annual reviews, and increases as well as decreases in powers, but has she considered the commentary on the mental health implications for the people who are subject to control orders? In that regard, does she believe that some period of certainty for those people on how they will be treated will be welcome?

Shabana Mahmood: The first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention makes my point for me. This is about the balance of risk. It is in the interests of those who are under control orders for Parliament to look at such measures at regular intervals rather than once every five years. His intervention supports rather than goes against my point.

Richard Fuller: rose—

Shabana Mahmood: I shall make some progress, because I am about to wind-up on new clause 7.
	The Minister spoke of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend spoke powerfully on the merit of reaching a settled position on such measures, but I should tell the Minister that given what has happened in the past few days, we are clearly not at a settled position on the Bill. In fact, the Government unsettled matters further by introducing the draft Bill a few days ago. For that reason, the Opposition believe that an annual renewal measure is merited and needed now more than ever, and we shall later seek to press new clause 7 to a Division.
	I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on amendment 20, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He updated the House and told us from the Dispatch Box that the police say that they will be able to meet the increased risks that we face under TPIMs with the additional resources, but I am afraid that I do not feel reassured by what he said, and we need to consider the matter in greater detail in the House this evening.
	By way of background, I should add that amendment 20 began life in Committee, as the Minister noted, and was introduced following evidence given to the Committee by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne, the national co-ordinator for counter-terrorist investigations. It is important to consider his evidence in detail. He was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about the time scales that he
	was working to in relation to the TPIMs regime, given that we have the Olympics next year, which is a particular concern. He said:
	“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires. It also depends on how many people actually go on to the TPIMs regime and how many people come off it. There are a lot of inter-dependents there. The control order put people in the protect and prepare part of the Contest strategy. TPIMs moves them back into the pursue element of the strategy, which is a slight paradox because it was only due to the failure to get sufficient evidence to prosecute them that we moved them into the control order in the first place
	He was asked further questions about resources by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). He asked why Mr Osborne was saying that it would take a year for the new regime to bed in, to which Mr Osborne replied:
	“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c.9-10.]
	That important evidence is the reason I moved the amendment in Committee and why I tabled amendment 20 for debate today. I was extremely concerned about the position on resources. The evidence from Mr Osborne was obviously stark, and it raised in my mind the spectre that if the Bill were passed by the end of this year, as we anticipate it will be, we would create a concerning situation: the additional resources required to meet the increased risk might not be deployable, and if they are, it seems they might be only partially ready. That is not, to my mind, a satisfactory state of affairs. The amendment therefore seeks to prevent the Bill from coming into force until the resources are online and would put in place a mechanism by which to get agreement between the national co-ordinator and the Home Secretary on the additional resources required and to get them ready and online.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend, who is making a forceful point, will remember Lord Carlile’s evidence to the Committee about the cost of surveillance. He said that the new TPIMs regime will increase the amount of human surveillance and that we could be talking about £18 million. We have not heard anything from the Minister about Lord Carlile’s evidence. Is that another area of concern for her?

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I entirely agree that the additional costs of the TPIMs regime are of concern, given the much lower cost of the control order regime, and I invite the Minister to explain how that correlates with the draft emergency legislation. Presumably, the additional resources might not be required in those circumstances. We need greater clarity about the costs that might arise in that situation.
	When I asked the Minister, in relation to amendment 20, about the one year that it takes to train up a surveillance officer, he said, “We’re not just looking at human resources”,
	but it is clear that Mr Osborne—this is why I read out his responses—was not just talking about human resources either. He was talking about hardware, software and money resources too, and it was his considered opinion, put on the record of the House, that all those resources would take more than one year to come online.
	I have to say that the Minister’s explanation—that not only are we looking at surveillance officers, but somehow this process can be managed with technology as well as anything else—does not give us the reassurance that we need that all the resources will be available, a point that I put to the Minister in Committee as well. I am not a very technical person—I often describe myself as a “tech-know-nothing”. However, after we have worked out what hardware is required, it will then need to be designed, procured and made, a process that I imagine would also take some time and could not happen overnight. Again, we do not have any clarity that those assets will be ready by the time the Bill comes into force either.
	We are in a position where Parliament is being asked to pass a Bill when there are real concerns about whether the increased risk that it poses can be met by the Government and the police. Our amendments do not seek to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, but to reassure the House and, perhaps more importantly, the public that we will be ready for the new regime when it comes online. They therefore offer a practical way to try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in Committee and which will be of great concern to the public. I never thought that I would say this, but I can pray in aid Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary, in support of my case for amendment 20. He, too, gave evidence to the Committee, saying:
	“If the police evidence is that it will take them a year to prepare, that evidence has to be respected. Obviously, it is important that arrangements remain in place until the moment arrives when the new regime can be effectively introduced.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 27, Q84.]
	That is exactly the purpose of amendment 20.

Hazel Blears: I, too, think that my hon. Friend is making a powerful case on resources. This is a practical issue, irrespective of the principal differences that we might have on different sides of the House. Does she regard the assurances that the Minister has received from the Metropolitan police as sufficient in the circumstances? Would she welcome some written evidence from the Minister and the Metropolitan police about the time that it will take to procure those resources, both human and electronic, and the period in which they can be ready to meet the increased risk caused by the TPIM legislation?

Shabana Mahmood: I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments. The House needs much more detail, given that there now seems to be a big difference between what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne told us in Committee and what the Minister is telling the House today. A written explanation needs to be put before the House when we are working out whether we buy this new line that the resources will, in fact, be ready. If that information is forthcoming, it is important that it should be about not just the human resources, but the hardware, software and other assets, as well as the money. I
	appreciate that some of that information might be constrained, but surely it would not be too difficult to allay any fears that the House might have about the time that it takes for such resources to be either trained up or procured and developed.

Mark Field: The hon. Lady is making a fair case, but in view of the fact that we are now 11 months in advance of the Olympic games, which is clearly the big cloud in the sky when it comes to these issues, is she really suggesting that we should keep to the control order regime until the Olympics are behind us and only then change, or does she think that there is any chance of the procurement that she is looking for taking place within that time frame, such that the process will be “online”, as she puts it, before July next year?

Shabana Mahmood: The short answer is yes. We have retained the control order regime until the end of this year, which was a decision that the coalition Government took to give themselves a chance to bring forward their legislation. I do not think that an amendment that seeks to make that legislation better—or at least allay concerns that the public might have about the dangers that it poses—should somehow mean that we dump control orders and just have a gap. We could quite easily carry on with control orders until the new resources were ready to be deployed, which is exactly what the amendment envisages.

Bob Stewart: I have been a watcher. It takes a heck of a long time to train someone to become proficient in watching an individual. I fully support what the hon. Lady is saying. We cannot just do this overnight; it is going to take a long time. I am really worried by what the Minister said about the Metropolitan police saying that they could do all this now, when Mr Osborne said that it would take a minimum of 12 months to establish.

Shabana Mahmood: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support amendment 20. He has made my case for me.

Bob Stewart: May I do so while holding my nose?

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that indication. I am also grateful for his support. He was of course a fellow member of the Public Bill Committee.

Pat McFadden: Does not this go to the heart of the issue? It is risky enough to legislate, as the Government are proposing, to give terrorist suspects increased freedom of movement and increased access to mobile phones and the internet, and then to admit, as the Government do, that this will put increased pressure on the police and the security services, without also trying to implement the legislation before the police and security services are fully ready to cope with the increased risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not produce better evidence of the capability of the police and security services to meet this increased risk, they will be adding irresponsibility to increased risk for the public?

Shabana Mahmood: I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s point, which reminds me that, under the Bill, access to electronic communications must be provided to suspects. One of the justifications for that is that the suspects will be monitored in that way, and the equipment will be provided by the Home Office. Presumably, some kind of software or hardware wiring will be needed to enable the suspects to be traced, and to listen in on conversations. Again, I do not believe that those technical assets could be procured overnight, especially given the different kinds of asset that might be needed to deal with different kinds of risk.

Richard Fuller: I fear that Opposition Members might be trying to scare Members of Parliament when there is no real justification for doing so. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) spoke of increased threats, saying:
	“I visited some of our prisons and I saw some of the terrorists who had been prosecuted, and they really are scary people. Next year, a large number of them will be released on licence, and they will be back in society, so the threat is always there.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 55.]
	Does not that show that our police and security forces are constantly having to meet these threats? If the police feel comfortable managing people who have been convicted and are coming out of prison, this modification of control orders into TPIMs is a minor issue in comparison. The hon. Lady is building this issue up into something that it is not.

Shabana Mahmood: I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he almost makes my point for me. The police do an incredible job of trying to protect us from the serious risks that we face, not only from the individuals who are or have been subjected to a control order, but from the many hundreds, possibly thousands, more who are of interest to them in their investigations into potential terrorism offences. The risk is always there, which is why we had to bring in the control order regime and why we believe those powers are necessary. Elements of the Bill decrease those measures in such a way as to increase the risk. We are told that the risk can be mitigated by the additional resources, but it cannot be eliminated. We have a real fear that those additional resources will not be ready by the time the Bill comes into force. For that reason, amendment 20 would reassure the public; its purpose is really no more than that.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Shabana Mahmood: No, I am about to finish my speech.
	I note that the Government have made some movement in the right direction in relation to the review and the sunset clause, but I do not believe that that goes far enough. We need the extra check and balance that would be provided by annual renewal, so I am minded to press new clause 7 to a vote, and unless the Minister gives us further reassurance about the resources, I shall also be minded to press amendment 20 to the vote.

Julian Huppert: It is tempting to spend a while talking about risk, as that is a theme that lies behind this debate. Opposition Members have not mentioned the risk we create by treating people who have not been
	convicted of an offence as though they have been so convicted. In some cases, people who have been found not guilty in a court of law have immediately had a control order slapped on them. There is a risk involved in such cases. We have also heard the slightly lazy assumption that all the people who are suspects in these circumstances are dangerous. We know that some people have been completely exonerated. For example, Cerrie Bullivant, to whom I spoke earlier today, was not a risk, yet he was punished as though he was, for a very long time. Instead, however, I will talk about the purpose of sunset clauses.

David Davis: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of risk, may I suggest that we need to tackle this matter head-on? During the course of the control order regime, the number of people of interest to the security services started at 1,600 and grew by 25% per annum, until the numbers rose above 4,000 and the agencies got too embarrassed to announce them. Does my hon. Friend accept that the control order regime and everything that went with it were so heavy-handed that they actually increased radicalisation rather than reducing it?

Julian Huppert: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That speaks volumes about how ineffective control orders and the whole panoply of tools used by the previous Government were. It also highlights why the points about the extra resources needed by the police do not really matter. If there are 1,600 or 2,000 or 3,000 people of great interest to the security services, I hope that the services are occasionally looking at them; otherwise, their interest cannot be very great. If those people are actually dangerous, resources should be available as the extra resources to deal with a relatively small handful of people are a drop in the ocean.

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about control orders, but will the TPIMs regime be any better?

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. My short answer is yes; my longer answer is: by a bit. This is not the solution that I would most like to see, but it is a step in the right direction. I wish that we could go further, and perhaps the other place will be more able to achieve that than we are here. Perhaps the more enlightened Labour peers will take the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on this matter, rather than that taken by those on his Front Bench.
	I move now to the subject of this group of amendments, which deal with sunset clauses. I argued in Committee that there were four reasons for having such clauses. One relates to debating the issue in question every year; another is about having a vote every year. As we have said, that method has not turned out to be very effective. It has been very much a token gesture. Although it is nice to see it in place, it has not really delivered. We still have the ability to debate this matter at any time, particularly in the light of the Government’s new approach to Back-Bench debates, if some other change takes place. Similarly, the Government could get rid of TPIMs at any time, as could any future Government. Five years is a maximum, not a minimum. The annual review has simply not been an effective tool, which is a great shame. It does not work very well, and Parliament should look at how effective it is at doing things like that.
	The Government think that the review provisions are a really good thing. I would like to see them happening seriously and in detail, but the level of review that has happened under this Government cannot happen every year. It did not do so in the past, to that level. There was a quick look, and a quick renewal. That is not what we want. We want to look underneath what is happening, rather than simply taking the easy option.
	I have asked the Minister and the shadow Minister whether, if either of them is in the next Government, they will ensure that a proper review is carried out. If I am in the next Government, I will do my very best to ensure that that happens—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am delighted to hear that that has support on both sides of the House; we will have to see what happens. I would do my best to ensure that there was a review that moved us closer to the position that I would like—namely, a lower-risk solution that was also better for civil liberties.

Mark Field: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this gets to the nub of the problem—that there is a distinction between would-be or former members of the Executive, whose view is almost “If only you knew what I know now”, and many other parliamentarians and indeed the public outside? That disconnect is one of the most dangerous elements of the entire debate.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have always been uncomfortable when someone says, “I know better, so just do exactly what I say.” I am never comfortable with that as a form of argument, partly because it is very hard to rebut. In many ways, it is the central argument behind control orders—when the state tells someone, “I know what you’ve done, but I’m not going to tell you what it is or how I know; we’re just going to assume that you have done this.”

David Davis: rose —

Julian Huppert: I will take one more intervention, but then I would like to make some progress.

David Davis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intervening a second time, but on this point of “We know better than you”, the real problem with reviews has not been the timing so much as the quality of the information provided. We know that there have been miscarriages of justice, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but these are never mentioned in any reviews. We also know from the evidence of the last few days that the control orders were used in effect to immobilise Libyan dissidents to suit our foreign policy in dealing with Colonel Gaddafi. This is the sort of thing we in the House should know about; the failure is not about time, but about the quality of the information provided to us.

Julian Huppert: Indeed. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He pre-empts something I was planning to say later about the Libyan issue, which is a very serious one, as it seems that the Government might have acted perhaps using some of these tools on behalf of another power. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure that that has never happened, and also assure us later than none of the evidence under which people have been subject to control orders has come as a result
	of torture in Libya. We have heard some astonishing stories; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments about this either now or later, if he has time to check the facts.
	The other purpose of a sunset clause is to flag up the fact that something is exceptional and should not be a regular part of our law. We do not have a sunset clause on theft and we do not have one on the vast majority of things because they are standard. This is an exceptional measure and we need to flag it up. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have accepted the argument. We should be very concerned when we step outside the normal bounds.
	I disagree entirely with the comments made by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who I believed to be a shadow Minister but who appears to be sitting on the very Back Benches. I do not know what that says about his position and standing. [Interruption.] I hope he will move towards the front rather than withdraw to the back. I withdraw any aspersions I may have cast on the hon. Gentleman in what I said; I was merely surprised by his location. In Committee, he said:
	“Unfortunately, there are times when people have to be outside the legal framework.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 57.]
	I disagree with him completely and utterly on that. I think we have a legal framework for a reason, and once we start saying that people should be outside it, we are on very dangerous grounds.

Hazel Blears: Throughout the Bill’s passage through Committee, my respect for the hon. Gentleman grew.

Mark Tami: Mine didn’t!

Hazel Blears: Credit where it is due! I think the hon. Gentleman takes his own very principled position. He does not believe that Executive orders should be made in an administrative capacity but that we should use the criminal justice system for every eventuality. That is a principled viewpoint and a perfectly legitimate one to hold. I would, however, press the hon. Gentleman, because some of the language his party has used is redolent of a totalitarian regime. We have heard about internal exile, house arrest and goodness knows what. There is judicial oversight at every step of the process relating to control orders. There are judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, special advocates; and the people subject to the orders have to be given the gist of the case against them. We have had a series of legal judgments. We are not operating in a kind of totalitarian regime without intense judicial scrutiny. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that this legislation has been subject to more litigation, examination, test, test and test than any other legislation in our legal system. His principled position is perfectly arguable, but I hope that he is not saying that this country does not have intense, high-level judicial scrutiny of these very contentious and important matters.

Julian Huppert: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind comments. It is clear that we come from very different principled positions; we disagree at the level of principle, not just at the level of detail. She is absolutely right to say that there is indeed a lot of judicial oversight and a
	number of checks and balances, not all agreed to entirely voluntarily by the previous Government. The judges sometimes had to take quite active steps about the gist of the case. I do not think special advocates provide the best way of doing this; I would like people to know what they are accused of. I will agree to the right hon. Lady’s request and try to remember to talk about “internal exile with judicial oversight”. I will try to remember to use that full phrase if it would please her.
	These powers are exceptional. They are not what we want. We should strive harder to find ways that fit within the legal framework to make this case. I would have liked to talk later in great detail about police bail, but I am afraid I shall not be able to. I still think it is the right way forward. [Interruption.] It sounds as though there is some support from others. I hope that their Lordships will have a chance to look at that. I still think we could make that system work extremely well.
	I am pleased to see the Government new clauses 3 and 4 and consequential Government amendments 11 and 13. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the need for a sunset clause. I thank the Minister for doing that. It is always a great pleasure when the Government take up something that a Back-Bench Member has argued for. I am very pleased indeed.
	I deal now with new clause 7, proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). She has tried to come up with this sort of amending provision on a number of occasions. It is good to see that there are no obvious flaws in this one, but I just disagree with it. I would love to have a proper, carefully thought-through review every single year, but I do not think it will happen. It has never happened in the past and I believe it is more valuable to have a serious piece of work, seriously looking at whether we could reduce the amount of extraordinary legislation, carried out every five years than it is to have a token review every year. I respect the hon. Lady’s position in wanting a review every year, but I disagree with her in that she wants to revise it upwards every year—

Shabana Mahmood: Or downwards.

Julian Huppert: Indeed. I definitely disagree with the idea of it going up every year. I accept her principles, as I say, but I think that doing it properly every five years is better.
	I disagree in principle, however, with amendment 8, which has not yet been spoken to, but may be later, and amendment 20. These are, I am afraid, a last-ditch attempt to keep control orders going for as long as possible. We do not want that to happen. We do not want control orders, and all the problems associated with them, lasting longer than they have to. They should be stopped as soon as possible.

Shabana Mahmood: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the amendments, as drafted, envisage that the TPIMs regime will come into force and that they seek only to delay it until the resources are ready? They do not seek to keep control orders for ever more.

Hazel Blears: I accept that these are delays; they are not about permanently keeping the orders. We will, of course, see how the vote works out. The amendments
	are nonetheless a last-ditch attempt to keep the orders going for a few more months or a couple more years or a little bit further. I do not want that.

Gerry Sutcliffe: rose —

Julian Huppert: I am delighted to give way to the shadow Minister.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he satisfied by the Minister’s response about the assurances from the Metropolitan police? The hon. Gentleman will accept that this was a key point that we all raised in Committee. Is he prepared to accept the Minister’s words as outlined? Would he not prefer to see some written evidence or some written response from the Met to confirm that it is or can be ready?

Julian Huppert: I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and apologise again for any criticism I might have made earlier about his seating. I do trust the Minister on this one. I am sure he would not have told the House something that the Metropolitan police had not told him was the case. I am sure he will be able to confirm that. I do have faith that the Metropolitan police have said this, if the Minister says it did.
	I see amendments 8 and 20 as an attempt to keep control orders going for that last gasp. The gasp is not very long; it might not be a full five or 10-year gasp, but it is still a gasp and one gasp too many. I shall not support those amendments.
	I believe we have made progress. The Government amendments take us a stage further. I am delighted to support them and look forward to hearing other contributions to the debate.

Keith Vaz: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and to wish him well in his ministerial career. I know that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and I, who are with him every Tuesday, will want that to happen as soon as possible—but not before tomorrow, when, as he knows, we start our inquiry into the London riots.
	In four days’ time, on its 10th anniversary, we shall remember the events of 9/11. The weekend newspapers were full of terrible accounts of what happened that day and of the stories of the survivors. The House discusses terrorism and its prevention in a measured, careful and sober manner, and I hope we shall do so today as we consider amendments and debate important issues.
	I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, and—mea culpa on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee—I am afraid that our agenda has been so full over the past two years that we have not had an opportunity to scrutinise this aspect of policy properly. We hope to make up for that next Tuesday, when we begin our inquiry into the roots of radicalism. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) talked of the need to understand why people become radicals. Next week our Committee will take evidence from the chairman of the United States committee on homeland security, Congressman Peter King. We hope to be able to present to the House in six months’ time—this will be a long and weighty inquiry—our views on what constitute the causes of terrorism, and on how we can deal with them.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the inquiry that is to be undertaken by my right hon. Friend’s Committee. May I ask him also to consider the fact that the country has had renewable emergency anti-terrorism legislation for 37 years, that the legislation has always been renewed six-monthly, annually or after whatever period has been specified, and that on each of those occasions we have moved further from the principles of absolute equality and transparency before the law and further towards a degree of Executive power? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time to turn the clock back in favour of openness and transparency, through the use of criminal law and criminal law alone?

Keith Vaz: I am sure that we shall touch on that subject. We are, of course, primarily concerned with the question of why people become radicals and what system makes them behave as they have behaved, but the way in which legislation is—in my hon. Friend's view—rushed through Parliament might well be one of our considerations.
	I think it healthy for the House to have heard the comments of my hon. Friend, of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who observed that when Parliament discusses these matters the measures concerned go through on the nod. I believe that the role of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) did a very good job in this regard—is to scrutinise and probe the Government, and that is exactly what happened when this Minister was the shadow Minister. Perhaps we regret not being more robust on issues of this kind when we are in opposition, but I hope that that will happen now. The five-year period for the review is probably too long; we need to consider it earlier and much more objectively, and that might be one of the issues that we can examine as the debate progresses.
	I have three points to make. The first concerns the process that the Government appear to have adopted. I hope that the Minister will reassure me about something about which he did not manage to reassure me when I probed him earlier, namely the role of Lord Macdonald. I understand that Lord Macdonald was appointed by the Government to review legislation. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a distinguished lawyer, he is someone whom I think we ought to consult as we present new proposals. Has he seen the Bill, and, if so, what were his comments on it and on the changes that have been made in the last few days?
	The same applies to Lord Carlile, who gave evidence that was diametrically opposed to that of Lord Macdonald. He wants to keep control orders, but, as colleagues will recall, when he appeared before the Select Committee he proposed a three-tier structure that he felt could replace them. Will the Minister enlighten the House on the process that was adopted, and confirm that there has been widespread consultation with the very people—Lord Carlile and Lord Macdonald—who the Government believed could contribute to the discussion?
	The second issue arises from what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I refer to the evidence given to the Committee about resources. I do not want to dance around the subject—I will be quite straightforward with
	the Minister—and I do not seek to make a party-political point, but I think that the Minister will feel much more able to defend the Government’s proposals if he has the comfort of knowing the Metropolitan police have revised their view.
	We realise that there has been some change at the top. The former head of counter-terrorism, Mr Yates—who, of course, ought to have been writing the letters concerned—is no longer in his post. There is now a new head of counter-terrorism, Cressida Dick, whom we have not had the opportunity of bringing before the Committee, although we hope to do so during our inquiry into the roots of radicalism. However, I think that, to protect himself and to reassure Parliament, the Minister ought to receive a letter of comfort. If he does not write to ask whether what DAC Osborne said has been replaced by new assurances, I shall probably do so myself.
	Like the hon. Member for Cambridge, I have a great deal of time for the Minister. I trust and value what he says, and I do not believe that he would come to the Dispatch Box and say that he had received assurances from the Metropolitan police if he had not. However, some of us need to be convinced. Mr Osborne is, after all, the deputy head of counter-terrorism in the Metropolitan police, which is quite a senior position. If he has given evidence that has subsequently had to be adapted because of whatever has happened in the last few weeks, let us have confirmation of that letter. If the Minister says that he is prepared to take such action, he will reassure me and, I believe, other Members.
	My final point relates to the need for us to be able to scrutinise anti-terrorism legislation without feeling nervous about doing so. Let me give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has been in the House for longer than I have. Even under a Labour Government, he and I went into opposite Division Lobbies to vote on anti-terrorism legislation, because he was prepared to scrutinise and to ask his questions. That is really important.
	Only the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), given his vast experience in the security services and the armed forces, will have the kind of practical experience that is necessary in cases such as this, and he will talk on the basis of that experience. I do not mean to insult anyone in the House, but the rest of us are mere politicians, and we do not have that kind of experience. It is obviously valuable to hear from people such as the hon. Gentleman. That is why it is important for there to be proper scrutiny and for evidence that is given to Select Committees or other Committees of the House to be accurate, so that when we decide on the legislation we can be above party politics in dealing with terrorism issues, as I hope we always can be.
	We should be mindful of the fact that whatever resources we put into counter-terrorism, there are those outside who have the time, the space and, in some cases, the fanaticism to be able to challenge what we do, and we should always be extremely cautious in dealing with issues of this kind.

Paul Goggins: it is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who always speaks with great wisdom and judgment on these issues, and who chairs the Home Affairs Committee.
	I do not intend to detain the House long. We have already had a good debate on the amendments. The Minister quoted remarks that I made on Second Reading; he quoted them accurately, and I stand by them. I believe that the terrorist threat that we face is one that we are likely to face for a considerable time, that the emphasis should be on trying to reach a consensus on what we should do about it, and that, if we can reach such a consensus, we should make provisions and make them permanent.
	I do not think for a minute that making provisions permanent means that everyone will forget about them; far from it. There would still be an opportunity for Government reviews if Ministers felt that that was appropriate. My right hon. Friend would still have his Select Committee inquiries, and he might well pick counter-terrorism as one of the issues to be discussed. I venture to suggest that no one would silence my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) if there were not an annual debate on the renewal of counter-terrorism provisions. All those things would still happen—and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, legislation could be repealed at any time. That option is always open to the Government. Therefore, in saying that I believe that such provisions should be made permanent, I do not believe that we should take our eye off the ball or stop considering and scrutinising those things, although I tend to agree with Lord Carlile that the sense that annual renewal is part of the scrutiny process is a “bit of a fiction”.
	It is evident, however, that we do not have consensus on the Bill. In fact, I venture to suggest that the gap between us is larger now than when we started to consider the Bill. We have seen the issues that are at stake, so the differences between us are quite substantial.
	I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken to bring forward the opportunity for review and renewal by each Parliament. I also welcome the amendment proposed my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) that calls for annual renewal. Even more important, I support her amendment 20, which would not allow any of the provisions to come into operation before the resources were clearly in place and the police and Security Service were signed up to that.
	My amendment 8 is intended to be a practical amendment to give absolute clarity in relation to the implementation and commencement of the Bill. My concern throughout the passage of the Bill—on Second Reading, during the Committee stage, during the summer and still now—is that the Bill weakens protection. It is not as robust as what went before it. When we add that to the likely threat and risks that we will face next year, the year of the Olympics, which we celebrate and want to be a great success, we have a toxic mix that could put lives at risk.
	Let us look at the facts. We know that 12 individuals are subject to control orders. We know from the Minister’s latest report to the House that three of those individuals already reside in the Metropolitan police area. We do not know where the other nine would call their home, but we suspect that a large number of them are from the London area, so that would be a huge move back to London by people who are very high risk individuals indeed, when terrorists who have been convicted of
	serious crimes are coming out of prison. I have had answers from Ministry of Justice Ministers showing that 45 convicted terrorists will have a release date in 2010-12, or at least that is the earliest release date. Add those potential 45 to the potential 12 and all their associates, and we have a substantial risk. To take that risk when we could delay the implementation of this Bill is a risk too far.

Bob Stewart: Surely anyone under a control order or under TPIMs is under surveillance. It would be very silly for someone under surveillance to do something related to terrorism because it might be found out. I would have thought that, once someone was under TPIMs or under control orders, their chances of being an active terrorist were hugely reduced. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Paul Goggins: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments on surveillance, the need to ensure that people are properly trained and the need not to pretend that we could introduce the level of skill that is required in a very short time. It takes time to train an individual. There is no perfect solution, because someone who is under surveillance can, if they are very skilled, slip that surveillance until such time as the people carrying out the surveillance catch up with them.

Bob Stewart: Some people have got away from control orders, and that is likely to happen again under TPIMs.

Paul Goggins: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to people who have absconded from their control order, I think he will remember from our discussions in Committee that that relates principally to the very early days of control orders. From recollection, I think that there has not been an abscondence for four years, and that related largely to foreign nationals who were the subject of control orders. However, he made a powerful point earlier on the need to ensure that people are properly trained to carry out surveillance.
	Given the toxic mix that I described, on 11 August I raised with the Prime Minister the possibility of delaying this Bill—certainly some elements of it in relation to relocation. He said that he would look “carefully and closely” at what I said. I have written to him since. I have not yet had a reply but I hope that I will soon. I will look carefully at his argument if he, as the Minister earlier suggested he would, sticks to the Government’s current position, because I think that that is a risk too far.
	I am happy to pay tribute to the principled position that the hon. Member for Cambridge holds and sticks to doggedly. It is different from the principled position that I hold but, because he is consistent it allows us to have a good debate. He accused me of using amendment 8 as a last-ditch attempt to keep control orders going. I humbly put it to him that that is not the case. I believe that the risks associated with the early introduction of this weakened legislation, in a year of great risk, is too much of a risk to take. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House when I put public safety above all else.

Mark Durkan: Listening to the debate and arguments about the comparative merits and demerits of TPIMs compared with control orders, and listening to the exchanges on whether a sunset clause for five years
	is better than annual review and renewal, I am reminded of what Talleyrand is meant to have said about Voltaire and Robespierre: when I think of either, I prefer the other. We are all caught in a situation where there are clearly problems with control orders, but we should be under no illusions: there will be serious problems with TPIMs too—problems of principle and of practice.
	May I deal first with the sunset clause and the question of renewal? I have a lot of sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others that the practice of Parliament in relation to annual renewal and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 has not exactly inspired huge confidence in the robustness of that challenge or the thoroughness of that review. But just because Parliament has perhaps had a habit of being derelict in its duty in relation to annual reviews, that does not give us the right to dismiss the case for subjecting measures as exceptional as these are to annual review.
	We are always told that one Parliament should not bind another. When it comes to exceptional measures, one Parliament simply should not discharge itself from due consideration. It is not enough for us to say, “If we go for the five-year sunset clause in the absence of annual reviews, Members such as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and other concerned Members will be diligent enough to create opportunities for themselves by way of Adjournment debates or use of the Backbench Business Committee to subject these things to review.” There are things that we as a Parliament should hold in common responsibility. The due protection of civil liberty, alongside the due protection of public safety, are among them.
	I accept that these measures—whether control orders or TPIMs—will be put through, whether control orders or TPIMs. Where there are exceptional measures that depart from the normal criminal law and give executive power to use secret intelligence and to deploy strict controls on an individual’s freedom, this Parliament should not just say, “We are content to let that run for five years and see where we stand thereafter.” If Parliament is going to approve these measures, it should at least give itself the duty to look again in a year to see whether they are still needed in this form or whether there should be improvements.

Richard Fuller: Annual review is just a veneer; to see that, we need only consider the number of Members present to debate it, and I also believe that it is always whipped through by the Government party. The people under these control orders have never had the advantage of having been brought to a proper trial, and what they want is some certainty. They want certainty that this Parliament will handle its responsibilities thoughtfully and thoroughly, and that would require conducting a thorough review that could then be used to advise the Government and inform Parliament in having a real debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that would be a major difference?

Mark Durkan: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that it will be a tonic to the mental health of people under these orders if they know that Parliament will not seriously discuss the matter for another five years. I do not see what relief or
	redress that offers them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, about the issue of our pretending that annual review will somehow of itself offer comfort to people under these orders in that it might result in their being reprieved from their exigencies. I would not give that false comfort or promise, and nor should we.
	Based on the experience that we have all had of the many previous annual renewals, the hon. Gentleman also makes a valid point in saying that the Chamber might take its responsibilities in this regard somewhat lightly, but let us therefore be exposed to condemnation for such dereliction of duty and for not turning up every year to consider renewals duly and properly, rather than pretend that it is sufficient to do that on a five-yearly basis. Considering the issues at stake under this Bill, the attendance for the current debate is not particularly unimpressive in comparison with the likely attendance, which the hon. Gentleman indicts, for an annual review debate.
	We should not kid ourselves about the false merits of a five-year sunset clause as opposed to an annual review, and nor should those of us who might vote in a Division to keep a version of annual review delude ourselves about the extent of the impact of annual reviews. However, annual reviews might ensure that the various other parliamentary means of scrutiny that exist—whether through the Backbench Business Committee or Select Committees—are used to condition such reviews and, perhaps, explore more of the alternatives.
	In the context of our deliberations today, I and others regret the fact that good amendments that were submitted on police bail and the conditions that could be attached to that are not available for us to discuss. Through discussing them, we would have been able to consider possible restrictions in cases where the police so far have only limited evidence that is not amenable to their taking the case to full prosecution. For such cases, there are means within the standard criminal law that can be deployed and developed, and amendments were tabled that offered that option. Through having annual reviews, some such alternatives might build up more of a head of steam. I am not saying we need annual reviews in the same style as in the past, but if we were to use annual reviews and the other parliamentary means now available to us, we could make more of this system.
	Focusing now on the substance of the Bill, control orders are a poor tool and a crude weapon, but whereas TPIMs might appear to be softer, even when looked at through the bubblewrap of all the claims that the Government make for this Bill, they are also a poor tool and a crude weapon. Some of us have experience of how counter-terrorism measures can be deployed in counter-productive ways. They can act as grist to the mill of those who would radicalise others and try to spread subversion and dissident tendencies. They can also be used in ways that get in the way of good police work, and good police interface and engagement with communities whose sympathies and confidence are essential in holding the line against terrorist and subversive tendencies. We should therefore always tread lightly in relation to measures brought before us and offered as necessary and justified on the basis of countering terrorism.
	Parliament should be particularly wary when we are given the assurance that these powers will not merely be activated on the basis of secret intelligence by mysterious Executive servants who may or may not appear before
	Select Committees or anybody else in Parliament, because there will be a degree of judicial oversight through posts such as special advocates. We should be very wary about being casual about any provisions that involve constant reference to words such as “special” and features such as “secret,” but that is precisely what we have in the TPIMs cocktail that is before us, and it is the same cocktail that was before us in relation to control orders. We as a Parliament should at least be trying to provide some sort of antidote to that, or diluting it through putting in place the kind of scrutiny and challenge that an annual review might provide.
	I have listened to the arguments for and against these amendments. I am not impressed by the Government’s arguments, including those of the Liberal Democrats, in favour of their proposed measures. I support the Opposition on annual renewal, while not being under any illusions that that will be any great shakes in itself, but I certainly do not support the Opposition in trying to insinuate that somehow this legislation is dangerous in itself and exposes us to new risks because it damages control orders. I do not believe control orders have been necessary or effective in the way that they have operated. In fact, that has been dangerous in some regards, because sometimes both the terms and conditions of control orders have been interpreted randomly and capriciously, so that not only have people’s movements been restricted, but people have been made amenable to prosecution, and the threat of it, for supposed breach of unreasonable conditions.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Just today, I heard from somebody who used to be under a control order who said that there were a number of such instances. On one occasion he had to wait to sign in because there was a queue at the police station, which led to him signing in two minutes late. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that this Government also look at such details, because unreasonable conditions will make the whole system completely ridiculous?

Mark Durkan: Yes, I fully agree with that point about the ridiculously pedantic and capricious use of conditions to get something on these people, when they demonstrate no greater threat than the fact that they find it difficult to cope with increasingly bizarre conditions. Therefore, I do not hold the same brief as the Opposition for control orders and the existing legislation, which is why I do not support them on the amendments that suggest that control orders are somehow better, but neither do I fall for the Government’s false argument that TPIMs are substantially different, because they involve a large part of the same mix as control orders. I never bought the product “I can’t believe it’s not butter” and I am not going to buy “I can’t believe it’s not control orders.”

Caroline Lucas: I want to speak briefly in favour of new clause 7 on annual reviews, but only because it is the least worst option on the table. It is deeply concerning that, despite pre-election promises and having voted in the past against the massively controversial and now, I would argue, totally discredited control order regime, the coalition Government are trying to push through a Bill that in so many respects
	simply rebrands the very worst aspects of that failed regime. Despite the spin that was put out when the Bill was presented, it contains the same fundamental mechanism of detention. Restrictions on a terrorist suspect while further investigations continue will in many circumstances be reasonable and in the public interest, but what is so offensive about control orders and their close relatives, TPIMs, is that both are imposed by the Executive, not by a court. The continuation of a system of Government detention entirely outside the rule of law is neither effective nor just, and that is why I hope that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, we can make these annual reviews more rigorous. Perhaps we can use them in the way I imagine people on control orders hope they will be used: for proper, rigorous scrutiny.
	Today, I was in the same room as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and I, too, heard from somebody on a control order. I heard some shocking stories, and not just about that person waiting to sign in at a police station and being deemed to be two minutes late and therefore, supposedly, in breach of a control order. There were even more ridiculous accounts. People are being written to because they have not kept properly clean the flat in which they are supposed to be in internal detention. All kinds of ridiculous methods are being used to misuse the kind of tools being put before us today. That is why, at the very least, we need the option of an annual review.
	Everyone agrees that public safety requires that terrorists be held in prison, but let us not forget that this regime is about terrorist suspects, some of whom will be entirely innocent—as, indeed, was the gentleman we spoke to today. So, when considering these matters, which are central both to our security and to our core democratic values, it is critical to remember that the concern is not whether we would like to see terrorists subject to punitive restrictions, but whether we want a system that allows innocent people to be treated outside the rule of law. It is not the action of a democratic state to hold someone without telling them what they are charged with. That is the definition of a living hell: to hold someone without telling them what the evidence against them is, leaving them with no opportunity to defend themselves. The many past miscarriages of justice should weigh heavily on our consideration of these matters.
	I am disappointed that the amendments I co-signed with the hon. Member for Cambridge, on police bail, were not selected for debate. I realise that I cannot now debate them, but I would simply say that public safety is best assured when suspects are charged with a crime and, if found guilty, imprisoned, rather than left in the community to abscond—as a number of controlees have done—or, crucially, to act as an advertisement for extremism because the regime is so unjust and impacts not just upon them but on their families and communities. Police bail would have enabled us to get away from that and properly to investigate people who are suspected of a crime, rather than leaving them in this no-man’s land, which discredits us enormously as a country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I had not planned to speak in this section of the debate, but I was moved to do so by the eloquence of many of the contributions to it. We are debating TPIMs versus control orders, and the House will have heard in my intervention on the hon. Member
	for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that I do not see a whole lot of difference between them in terms of the underlying principles. I do not welcome TPIMs any more than I welcome control orders. I voted against control orders in the last Parliament and will continue to do so in this Parliament—and against TPIMs—for much the same reasons as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has eloquently explained to the House.
	We are getting into a debate about sunset clauses versus a review. I would prefer a sunset clause on the Bill; indeed, any special legislation should automatically have a very short sunset clause attached to it as a matter of course. We are passing major legislation that has a huge effect on the civil liberties of everybody. However, if we cannot have that—I do support the Opposition Front Benchers in this respect—we should at least have a 12-month review.
	One has to remember the atmosphere in this House in which we considered the question of special legislation. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was passed after the Birmingham pub bombings. They were appalling, they were disgraceful, and in that fevered atmosphere the House passed that Act, which it renewed at six-monthly intervals for a very long time. The only time when anti-terrorism legislation was passed in an atmosphere of relative calm was in 2000. All other such Acts were passed in respect of some awful event somewhere. At those times, the House met in a fevered atmosphere and said that it was important that, because of the nature of what had happened—be it 9/11, 7/7, Canary Wharf or any of a host of appalling incidents around the world or in this country—we had to pass the legislation because it would deal with the problem.
	Did the Prevention of Terrorism Act deal with the problem? No, it did not deal with it at all. It probably generated more support for those who wish to commit those acts than anything else, because it criminalised large numbers of people who had committed no criminal wrong. It criminalised large numbers of people who became very frightened, just as subsequent anti-terror legislation has done. We should therefore be very careful in what we are doing.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) pointed out in an intervention that there is judicial oversight over the 2005 legislation. That is true, and there are special judges, special courts and special advocates. However, all that is actually very dangerous, because it removes the relationship between the defendant and their representative, in that the latter is not allowed to reveal the full nature of the case against them. Only the judge knows the full nature of the case against them, along with, presumably, those promoting—for want of a better word—the prosecution against the individual. That is a denial of justice, because justice has to be done and be seen to be done. The person who is being judged against must be fully aware of all the evidence being used against them.
	As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion pointed out, we are allowing Executive control orders to be placed, with a limited degree of judicial oversight, over people against whom no criminal prosecution has been made. Let us consider the awful information that emerged from Libya concerning somebody who was deported there, and who suffered greatly as a result. That was a
	continuation of the idea that special laws require special purposes, and special events require special deals. Hence, the Government under Prime Minister Blair exchanged a series of letters with a number of north African and other countries that allowed people to be removed to those countries who had not necessarily committed any crime in this country—at least, it had not been proved by a court—on the basis that those regimes would be very nice and not torture people, despite their not having signed the UN convention against torture. We should be very careful when we start undermining the whole principle of our own law and international law, which is what we are doing with this legislation.
	I support the Opposition’s new clause 7, which at least gives us a 12-month review. It is not what I want but it is better than nothing, and it does give an opportunity for a debate, although I should point out that I have sat through virtually every PTA review debate, some of which were fairly perfunctory, to put it at its politest. However, I am not prepared to vote for the other two provisions because they do not take account of the degree of concern and opposition that exists to control orders and the accompanying legislation, or of the nature of the underlying case. If there is a threat to our society—I am quite sanguine about this: there are threats, dangers and problems—there is criminal law to deal with it. The ability exists to bring out criminal evidence against the individuals who have perpetrated those acts. However, because we are so keen to protect the power of our security services and those who do not have to give evidence or come out into the open, but whose information is so devastating against the individuals concerned, we are taking a dangerous move.
	I know that a small number of people are affected at present, but I see this as the slippery slope—away from what should be an open legal system in an open and liberal democracy. That is why I am not happy about the TPIMs process, any more than I was about control orders. The very least that we can do is to review the legislation every 12 months. I would rather we did not produce this legislation at all, and instead promoted open criminal law to deal with criminal acts that damage our society.

James Brokenshire: Let me begin by addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who cut to the heart of a number of arguments surrounding this Bill and the measures that we judge appropriate. We would all like to live in a world where the measures contemplated in the Bill were not needed. The sad reality is that they are, as a continuing threat will be posed to this country and its citizens by people it is not possible to prosecute, deport or take other action against so preventive measures are required. I wish that that were not the case but it is, which is why we are introducing the measures in this Bill. They follow on from the counter-terrorism review and are in recognition of this continuing risk to the citizens of this country. The Bill is certainly not about protecting the security services; it is about protecting the public. That is the driver behind these measures.
	Let me deal with the duration of the legislation and the Government’s sunset clause. Our starting point was that this legislation was not being considered in a fevered state but in a measured way so, like other legislation, it did not require a sunset clause. However, we listened carefully, we reflected on the Bill’s measures and the
	impact they could have on individuals, and we judged it appropriate that each Parliament should be able to review the measures in the context of the security situation at the time and consider whether their continuation was appropriate. That is why we have introduced the five-year sunset clause in the way that we have.
	It has been interesting to hear this evening’s debate about annual renewal. The hon. Member for Islington North has been a consistent participant in these debates—I respect the contributions that he has made year on year—and he implied that some of them have been “perfunctory”. That is not what we would wish in relation to legislation such as this, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the need for a serious and considered review of legislation was well made and strongly put. We took that approach when we sought to conduct a counter-terrorism review in preparation for this Bill.
	I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) makes. In some ways, she sympathises with the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Islington North. She makes a point about Executive action, but I repeat that circumstances and situations continue to arise that mean, sadly, that legislation of this type is necessary and continues to be required. She made a point about secret evidence, and the Government will shortly be introducing a Green Paper to consider further its use in court and to consider this matter in further detail, given a number of associated issues that have been raised.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain why he is so certain that the TPIMs regime will be effective, given that it is very similar to the control orders regime and nobody who has been placed under a control order has ever subsequently been prosecuted for a terrorism offence?

James Brokenshire: In some ways, this relates to the package of the measures before us. This is about not only this Bill, but the capabilities and resources being made available to the police and security services to allow them to monitor people and seek to bring them to justice. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and it is our preferred option, that people who commit acts related to terrorism should be prosecuted and brought to justice in the normal way. However, the Government need to assess risk and seek to protect the public, and we judge that, for a number of reasons, it is not possible to achieve that aim in all circumstances. That is why preventive measures of the type contemplated in this Bill are required and will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. We therefore argue that it is for Parliament to consider, on a per-Parliament basis, the necessity of these types of measures. I am aware that the hon. Lady has raised the issue of bail in this context, and we considered it in the counter-terrorism review. However, we had clear guidance from the police who recommended against bail being available for terrorist suspects because of the risk to public safety that might be involved.

David Davis: If I may, I will pursue the point raised by the hon. Lady. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that the number of convictions in this country is
	so low? In the 10 years or so since 9/11 there have been about 230 convictions relating to terrorism offences, which is less than 10% of the number in the United States during the same period, and similar comparisons can be drawn with other countries. Why does this country have such a low conviction rate compared with everybody else?

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend has taken a very consistent line on ensuring that those suspected of terrorism offences are brought to justice and that the courts are used appropriately. We need to do all we can to ensure that that happens, which is why we are taking forward measures such as post-charge questioning, which he has advocated clearly, and why we are continuing to examine the way in which intercept evidence might be usable in the courts and how the Privy Council review continues in relation to that. I agree with him that we need to be looking at a package of measures, that this is not about one instrument in itself and that it might be appropriate to take a range of steps. I would not want to suggest in this evening’s debate that this is about one issue. The Government are taking forward a range of measures as part of their counter-terrorism review and this Bill is just one part of that.

Richard Fuller: Before the Minister moves on, may I ask about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? The hon. Lady mentioned that there had been no convictions of people on control orders. By supporting the Government today, we will be extending the TPIMs regime by five years. What comfort can the Minister give us that that record of no convictions will be improved by a more thorough prosecution of the evidence and by bringing to trial the people under control orders? Can he say anything to give us some assurance that that system of containment rather than prosecution will change to one of prosecution and bringing to justice rather than one of just containing a problem and leaving people on one side?

James Brokenshire: I would point my hon. Friend in the direction of the Bill’s provisions, which clearly underline our desire to prosecute people when the evidence is available. That is part and parcel of the additional investigative capabilities intended to be available to the police and the security services. I believe that this approach will contribute to our being able to achieve the sorts of steps that he is advocating in terms of seeking to prosecute where there is admissible evidence that could be brought before the courts.
	I deal now with some of the other issues raised in this useful and constructive debate, which has been a symbol of some of the other consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge raised the issue of Libya and he will doubtless have heard clearly the comments made by the Prime Minister during the statement preceding this debate. It is the Government’s long-standing policy not to comment on intelligence matters, but I can make it absolutely clear that the Government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment for any purpose.

Several hon. Members: rose —

James Brokenshire: May I just finish the point? We have published the consolidated guidance to intelligence personnel, including on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees. The Government took early and decisive action to set up the Gibson inquiry, precisely to examine whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees so that we can better understand what happened and allow all involved closure.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way and I am grateful to him for allowing this point to be made. Is he concerned that the exchange of letters made by former Prime Minister Blair with a number of countries that allowed removal to those that had not signed the convention on torture should be ended? We should only ever remove people to a country that recognises the relevant sections of that convention and that would not carry out the death penalty against those people.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the investigation being undertaken by the Gibson inquiry. These matters will be looked at closely, but I certainly do not intend to expand this debate to cover them in such a way because time is pressing and we have a number of other issues to do with this mini-debate to get through.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about a couple of issues. The first was to do with the role of Lord Macdonald, who was not appointed to review counter-terrorism legislation generally or on an ongoing basis but was asked to oversee the counter-terrorism review, which completed in January. It is obviously open to him to look at and comment on the draft Bill; we have published it with the purpose of allowing it to be considered.
	Let me turn to the central issue raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench as well as other Opposition Members. I want to make it very clear that the TPIM system will provide appropriate, proportionate and effective powers for dealing with the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport. The new system introduced by the Bill will be accompanied by an increase in funding for the police and security services to enhance their investigative capabilities. As I have said, this will complement the new regime and, we believe, maintain public confidence. To repeat what I have said, the Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIMs. I have heard what Opposition Members and other Members have said and I can say to the right hon. Member for Leicester East—or I would have done, if he was in his place—that I will take the issue away and consider further with the police what further information may be provided.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will recognise, there is a challenge here and we do not provide detailed breakdowns of what money we provide for specific security activities as that would provide detailed information about our capabilities and techniques that could undermine national security. There is a delicate balance to be struck, but I will certainly consider carefully the comments
	that have been made during this debate and consider with the Metropolitan police what further information might be appropriate.

Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Minister for giving way and for the indication that further written evidence will be available. I am still minded to press amendment 20 to a vote later this evening, but I have been advised by the Clerks that if new clause 3 is passed we cannot have a vote on new clause 7. May I clarify that although we would have liked to vote on annual renewal—we still believe it is an important measure—we will not oppose new clause 3? However, Labour Members will take the issue forward when the Bill reaches the other place.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clarification of the official Opposition’s stance. I have given the House clear assurances about the preparations for the transfer from control orders to TPIMs and we will reflect on the debate further, but we believe that the Government’s amendments for the review are appropriate, and, on the basis of the assurances we have received, we do not believe that the Opposition amendments are required. Even at this stage, I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on the debate and to consider withdrawing those amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers expire or are repealed under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers).
	(2) A TPIM notice which is in force immediately before expiry or repeal is to—
	(a) continue in force for the period of 28 days beginning with expiry or repeal; and
	(b) be treated as if revoked by the Secretary of State at the end of that period.
	(3) Subsection (2)(a) is subject to—
	(a) any variation under section12(1)(a) or (b), and
	(b) any revocation or quashing.
	(4) Except as provided for in subsection (5) or (6), TPIM proceedings may neither continue nor be begun after expiry or repeal.
	(5) TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal, but only for the purpose of determining one or more of the following matters—
	(a) whether a TPIM notice should be quashed;
	(b) whether measures imposed by a TPIM notice should be quashed;
	(c) whether to make a declaration under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule2.
	(6) Proceedings for an award of damages or other relief arising out of any TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7)(a) to (c) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal.
	(7) The TPIM proceedings referred to in subsections (5) and (6) are—
	(a) a reference made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 before expiry or repeal;
	(b) a hearing in pursuance of directions under section 8(2) or 8(5);
	(c) an appeal under section16;
	(d) an appeal, or further appeal, relating to a decision in any proceedings mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
	(8) If, after expiry of the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers, the powers are revived under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers)(2)(b)—
	(a) all TPIM notices, including any which were in force before expiry, are to be taken into account in determining whether there is new terrorism-related activity for the purposes of section3(6);
	(b) the expiry of those powers does not prevent them from being exercised after revival in relation to any TPIM notice which—
	(i) expired or was revoked before the expiry of the powers or during the relevant 28 day period, or
	(ii) is, in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of this section, treated as if revoked at the end of the relevant 28 day period;
	and for this purpose “relevant 28 day period” means the period of 28 days beginning with the expiry of the powers that is mentioned in subsection (2)(b).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures

‘(1) If the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency, the Secretary of State may make a temporary enhanced TPIM order during any period that—
	(a) begins with the dissolution of Parliament, and
	(b) ends with the first Queen’s Speech of the Parliament which first meets after that dissolution.
	(2) A temporary enhanced TPIM order is an order which makes provision for, or in connection with, giving the Secretary of State power to impose enhanced measures by notice on individuals whom the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, are, or have been, involved in terrorism-related activity.
	(3) An enhanced measure is a requirement, restriction or other provision which is of any of the following kinds—
	(a) a restriction on an individual in relation to the residence in which the individual resides, including—
	(i) a requirement to reside at a specified residence in the United Kingdom;
	(ii) a requirement not to allow others to reside at that residence without the permission of the Secretary of State;
	(iii) a requirement, applicable between specified hours, to remain at that residence;
	(b) a restriction on an individual in relation to leaving a specified area;
	(c) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within any of these paragraphs of Schedule1—
	(i) paragraphs 2 to 6;
	(ii) paragraph 7(1) and (2) and (4) to (6);
	(iii) paragraphs 9 to 12;
	(d) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within paragraph 8(1) of Schedule1 (as read with paragraph 8(3) of that Schedule), including—
	(i) a requirement not to associate or communicate with other persons without the permission of the Secretary of State, which includes provision allowing the individual (without seeking permission) to associate and communicate with such persons or descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State may specify;
	(ii) a requirement to give notice to the Secretary of State before associating or communicating with other persons, which includes provision allowing the individual (without giving notice) to associate and communicate with such persons, or descriptions of persons, as are specified.
	(iii) a requirement of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule1, which may in particular relate to association or communication which is allowed by virtue of provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) above;
	(e) provision which corresponds to provision within Part 2 of Schedule1;
	and for this purpose “specified” means specified by the Secretary of State in an enhanced TPIM notice.
	(4) Except as provided for in subsections (5) to (10), the provision made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order must correspond to the relevant provisions of this Act.
	(5) A temporary enhanced TPIM order—
	(a) must secure that enhanced TPIM notices and standard TPIM notices are separate notices;
	(b) must secure that, at any particular time, an enhanced TPIM notice and a standard TPIM notice are not both in force in relation to a particular individual; and
	(c) may secure that the application of a temporary enhanced TPIM order to a particular individual does not affect the application of this Act to that individual (and vice versa).
	(6) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section 3 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that section to secure—
	(a) that condition A is replaced by a condition which secures that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity; and
	(b) that condition D is replaced by a condition which secures both—
	(i) the same result as condition D, and
	(ii) that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless some or all of the measures imposed by the enhanced TPIM notice are measures that may not be imposed by a standard TPIM notice.
	(7) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section5(1) must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that subsection to secure that each enhanced TPIM notice ceases to be in force at the time when the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect in accordance with section (Temporary power: supplementary provision)(1) (subject to earlier revocation or quashing of the notice).
	(8) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to Schedule 1 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that Schedule to secure that it is enhanced measures which the Secretary of State has power to impose.
	(9) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation, in accordance with this section, of the enhanced TPIM power.
	(10) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision for the purposes of securing that transitional and saving provision relating to a temporary enhanced TPIM order ceasing to have effect may be made (including provision for enhanced TPIM notices to continue in force for a period, which does not exceed 28 days, after the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect).
	(11) The provision that may be made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order includes—
	(a) provision amending any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);
	(b) provision applying (with or without modifications) any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);
	(c) provision conferring functions on the Secretary of State or any other person (including, in the case of the Secretary of State or any other Minister of the Crown, functions of a legislative nature).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 6—Temporary power: supplementary provision.
	Amendment 1,page22,line31, in Schedule 1, at end add—
	‘Additional measures
	12A (1) The Secretary of State may impose measures additional to those contained in Schedule 1 if—
	(a) there is a serious terrorist threat; and
	(b) they are necessary for the protection of the public.
	(2) Any measure under paragraph 13(1) can only be imposed if the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorism-related activity.’.
	Amendment 2,page22,line31, at end add—
	‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State
	12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.
	(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
	Amendment 3,page22,line31, at end add—
	‘Emergency additional measures introduced by Secretary of State
	12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.
	(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.
	Amendment 4,page22,line31, at end add—
	‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State during dissolution of Parliament
	12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part during a dissolution of Parliament.
	(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House in the new Parliament.
	(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.

James Brokenshire: This group of amendments relates to the enhanced TPIM provisions and the circumstances in which measures additional to those contained in the Bill might need to be imposed. The Government and Opposition are taking different approaches.
	The Government have made it clear that we believe that in future there might be exceptional circumstances in which it is necessary to introduce additional and more restrictive measures to those contained in the Bill. I emphasise that we hope never to need them, but, in the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to act to protect the public appropriately.

Julian Huppert: Will the Minister make it clear that he and the Government would not consider the Olympics, in and of themselves, to be such an emergency risk? There might be circumstances that would become such a risk, but will he confirm that the simple fact we are hosting them would not be sufficient to trigger the new legislation?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. The security arrangements for the Olympics are being planned on the basis that the additional powers envisaged under the enhanced TPIM Bill will not be needed. This is about considering exceptional circumstances and exceptional risk, which is why we have sought to take the approach that we have. In exceptional circumstances we will, where possible, bring forward emergency legislation to introduce such powers. That is why we have drafted and published in draft the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That will give Parliament the opportunity to examine its terms closely. In some ways, this underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in the previous debate about seeking to do this in a considered and measured way rather than in a febrile atmosphere—the draft Bill has been introduced to facilitate that.
	If the enhanced TPIM Bill is introduced while Parliament is in recess, Parliament can be recalled to debate it, but there is a small gap in our ability to introduce this emergency legislation in periods where Parliament is dissolved and where a new Parliament has been appointed but the first Queen’s Speech has not been delivered. This gap was identified during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft emergency Bills to extend periods of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days.
	Government new clauses 5 and 6 take the same approach to addressing that gap as we are proposing to take with pre-charge detention. They introduce a power to the standard TPIM Bill that would allow the Secretary of State—where necessary by reason of urgency—to bring the enhanced TPIM regime into force by making a temporary enhanced TPIM order. This power would be exercisable only in the periods I have mentioned: while Parliament is dissolved and in the period between the appointment of a new Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech. A temporary enhanced TPIM order would make provision directly equivalent to that in the enhanced Bill. I shall not delay the House by reciting the detail of that Bill’s provisions; it has been published and is available to all Members to read. It will be subject to rigorous pre-legislative scrutiny, following which it will no doubt be amended and improved.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the way in which he has managed so far to present the enhanced TPIM Bill. Would he not accept
	that the TPIM legislation, like the control order legislation, is in and of itself exceptional legislation that we have all said should be used as a last resort? It is not something that any party would want to adopt; it is outwith the normal criminal justice system and it is not part of the normal legislative process. Why, for goodness’ sake, does not he include the enhanced measures in the existing legislation—not so that they are required to be used by the Home Secretary, but so that she would be able to use them if circumstances were to arise in which it was necessary to have a power of relocation, curfew, association or exclusion? This is the most convoluted, awkward, difficult and strange way of legislating that I have ever seen. We are going to have exceptional legislation to exceptional legislation in exceptional circumstances. Why cannot the Minister legislate properly and put these powers into existing legislation?

James Brokenshire: I think that underlines the fundamental difference between us on the nature of the powers that are contemplated and their impact on individuals and counter-terrorism. A number of contributions have been made about radicalisation. Given the stringent nature of the powers that are contemplated under the enhanced provisions, we believe it is absolutely right that Parliament should determine whether the circumstances are so exceptional that emergency powers are needed. That is the right way to do things, rather than seeking to suggest that this is all business as usual and that the powers should be on the statute book. That is why I disagree with the right hon. Lady.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister have any idea just how ridiculous the Government look with these enhanced TPIM measures and, more importantly, how disappointed civil libertarian groups are with the Government? The system is probably worse than what the previous, anti-civil libertarian Labour Government proposed. Why cannot we have proper legislation, and why cannot the Government continue the good work they started instead of going down this route?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely reject the assertion that this Bill is in some way more draconian and cracks down more on liberty than the approach of the previous Government. That is precisely why we have sought to rebalance the counter-terrorism legislation, and that has been at the heart of the counter-terrorism review. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman recognised that. We have recognised the very nature of the enhanced measures and why it is appropriate not to have them as business as usual—why it is appropriate to have them in a Bill that can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and can be considered calmly and rationally rather than rushing and not having powers available to deal with extraordinary and extreme circumstances. That is why we have taken the view that we have in the structure of the approach in the draft enhanced Bill and in this Bill.

Shabana Mahmood: How does the Minister say that control orders or TPIMs are business as usual?

James Brokenshire: I am saying that because this legislation remains and resides on the statute book, subject to the new clauses that we have rightly put in
	place following the previous debate with the five-year renewal. The powers that are available under the enhanced measures are such that they require a further considered approach by Parliament before they are introduced. That is why we have rationally and reasonably, as reflected in the counter-terrorism review, sought to adopt the approach that we have.

David Davis: I have no wish to add to my hon. Friend’s difficulties, but he knows I have concerns about this issue. The simple truth is that had the 90-day measure been put before the House in July 2005, when the atrocity occurred, the House would have taken a much more emotional, rather than rational, decision. I have a general concern—I know that he is thinking through the legislation—that the House does not make its best decisions in the immediate aftermath of atrocities. There is a risk, in going down this route, that we will get not rational, but irrational, decisions.

James Brokenshire: I hear that argument, which is why we have sought to produce the draft Bill—to ensure that it can be considered rationally, calmly and coldly by the Joint Committee. Approaching it in that way means that in circumstances similar to those that have, sadly, arisen in the past, there is a defined mechanism and method that has been subject to scrutiny in advance. In many ways, we are seeking to recognise some of the challenges to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has alluded and to address them by having the draft Bill available now for consideration.

Hazel Blears: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. May I ask him a specific question? Will we have to wait until this country is subject to exceptional circumstances, which Lord Macdonald has said could be a series of catastrophic attacks in every major city in Britain, until we have a power of relocation on our statute book?

James Brokenshire: I shall not second-guess the circumstances in which the draft Bill and those provisions would be required. Clearly, it would be in exceptional circumstances in which we were faced with a serious terrorist risk that could not be managed by any other means. That is the sort of situation we are contemplating, but I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture. The right hon. Lady and I disagree on this, but, as I have said quite clearly, we believe that the TPIMs regime in its entirety—the standard TPIMs regime and the supportive resources around it—is sufficient to manage the threats that we face. Only in exceptional circumstances would the enhanced measures be required. That is the conclusion we have reached as part of the counter-terrorism review. I appreciate that she and I differ on that, but that was the conclusion we came to. The counter-terrorism review recognised that enhanced measures might be required in exceptional circumstances, which is why we have taken the view we have.

Julian Huppert: Contrary to the right hon. Lady’s point, does the Minister share my pleasure that we will be able to keep the powers of internal exile with judicial oversight off the statute book for as long as we can?

James Brokenshire: The counter-terrorism review carefully concluded that there might be exceptional circumstances—a very serious terrorist risk—in which the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. That is what we are seeking to do and that is why we believe that the overall approach taken by this Bill is appropriate.

Pat McFadden: With the publication of the draft Bill, the Government have conceded that they have no argument in principle against the extra powers in the enhanced TPIMs regime. What will the Minister say to the victims of terrorism in the emergency circumstances that he sets out and that might give rise to their introduction? Will he say that we had the extra powers but we decided not to use them until the incident happened? Does he really believe that the Government could survive in those circumstances? Does he not see the nonsense of that position?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman’s question is premised on various assumptions that I just do not accept. He can make his point but the Bill and the enhanced measures that sit alongside it have been part of a very considered approach in relation to the overall legislative framework, which has not been rushed but has been considered. It has very much at its heart our responsibility to protect the public, but it also recognises that there is a balance to be struck. We believe that the balance has previously been wrong and that it needs to be adjusted, as contemplated by the Bill, to ensure that our counter-terrorism measures are appropriate, necessary and focused on delivering safety and security in a way that is judged appropriate on the basis of the evidence.
	The draft enhanced TPIM Bill contains provisions that mean that if it is brought into force while a temporary enhanced TPIM order is in force, a decision taken under that order should be treated as a decision under the new enhanced Bill. The regime provided by the emergency TPIM order is intended to be the same as that provided by the enhanced Bill. In other words, the new clauses are intended to be complementary. They set out the various provisions and matters that may, or in some cases that must, be secured by a temporary enhanced TPIM order, to give effect to the regime set out in the emergency Bill. This includes in particular setting out the more stringent restrictions that would be available, and the fact that an enhanced notice may be imposed only where the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Once made, the temporary enhanced TPIM order would remain in force for 90 days, or a shorter period if specified in the order. It must be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. While it is in force the Secretary of State can repeal its provisions at any time.
	The 90-day period is intended to cover, but not significantly to exceed, the period during which Parliament would be unable to pass the emergency legislation. After parliamentary business resumes, the Government can introduce the enhanced TPIM Bill, if they judge it appropriate, to replace the powers conferred by the order with powers under primary legislation.
	These are essential provisions. The power that they provide may never need to be used. Indeed, we would all prefer that the exceptional circumstances for which it
	and the enhanced TPIM Bill are intended never arise. None the less, it is necessary for a responsible Government to ensure that the enhanced TPIM powers can be brought into force in all circumstances in which they may be necessary.

Mark Durkan: Does the Minister not recall that when the previous Government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Bill with provision, at that stage, for 42-day detention, which was to be the subject of a parliamentary debate and vote when the powers were activated, the then Opposition rightly argued that it would create dangers for Parliament and eventually for the judiciary, potentially, to activate parliamentary control in relation to measures that were being taken against known individuals? Questions were asked, such as how a parliamentary debate in such a situation would be informed. What information would be in the media and in Parliament, and how could we ensure that, if there was a prosecution, that did not destroy the basis for a fair trial? Exactly the arguments that the Opposition used against the previous Government’s measures surely apply in respect of the arguments that the Minister has just made for his enhanced TPIMs.

James Brokenshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s case, and care will be required, but the House often considers topics in relation to which matters are before the courts. The emergency legislation deals with the principles, not with individuals. The House has demonstrated clearly that it is able to do that and to consider and debate matters where care is required.
	Amendments 1 to 4 address situations where more stringent measures are needed to protect the public than those available under the Bill. Amendment 1 would in effect place a version of the enhanced TPIM proposals formally on the statute book through the Bill. We debated an almost identical amendment in Committee. It would add a new paragraph to schedule 1, allowing the Secretary of State to impose any measure, in addition to those otherwise specified in schedule 1, on an individual where
	“there is a serious terrorist threat”
	and where such measures are
	“necessary for the protection of the public.”
	It reflects the position in the enhanced TPIM Bill that the test for imposing such additional measures would be raised from “reasonable belief” of involvement in terrorism-related activity to being satisfied on the “balance of probabilities” that this is the case.
	Amendments 2 and 3 offer an alternative approach to providing for the use of additional measures to that set out in amendment 1. Instead of provision being made on the face of the Bill, the Government would be able to add further measures to schedule 1 by order. Amendment 2 envisages that Parliament would approve those measures in advance; amendment 3 provides for retrospective parliamentary approval and so seeks to address other concerns. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 highlight a difference in approach between those on the Opposition Benches and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches.
	The Government’s position is that the Bill provides a robust and effective set of measures to manage the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we cannot prosecute
	or deport, and it will be complemented by additional funding for the police and Security Service for covert investigation. The Government consider that more stringent powers will be required only in exceptional circumstances. So although the Government agree with the Opposition that there may be a need for additional measures to those contained in schedule 1, we believe, as we flagged up in our counter-terrorism review, it is right that those more stringent powers are not on the statute book or available at all times through an order-making power, as amendments 1, 2 and 3 would provide, but are contained in draft emergency legislation that is introduced only if required. This is also reflected in the Government’s approach to extended pre-charge detention.
	Furthermore, the Government consider that it is appropriate for the measures available to the Secretary of State to be set out on the face of primary legislation, and to have been agreed in advance by Parliament. That is the clear approach adopted in the Bill before us, and it is also the approach that we have taken in the enhanced Bill. Indeed, I would argue that the more stringent nature of measures available under the enhanced Bill is an even greater reason for them to be clearly defined and agreed by Parliament, rather than decided on an ad hoc basis by the Secretary of State. The Government are therefore not in favour of amendments 1, 2 and 3. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask hon. Members not to press them.
	Amendment 4 is specifically concerned with what would happen if the additional measures are required during a period when Parliament is dissolved. The same issue was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny of the emergency Bills for extended pre-charge detention. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed and new clauses 5 and 6, which I have already outlined, directly address the point. I trust that this means that Opposition Members will be content to withdraw their amendment.

Paul Goggins: I shall speak to amendments 1 to 4 and voice my support for Government new clauses 5 and 6. Throughout Second Reading and consideration in Committee, I have supported the principle of placing in schedule 1 a list of conditions that would be available to the Secretary of State under the TPIMs regime. Under control orders there is no such list. The Home Secretary can impose any condition, subject to accountability to the court. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has continued to remind the House throughout the debate, there is that continued oversight over the existing regime.
	The problem with schedule 1 is that the list of conditions that it provides is inadequate. For example, it requires that the Home Secretary must—not may, as I hope we will discuss later—allow someone subject to a TPIM to have access to the internet and to have a mobile phone and a land line. There is no option; the Home Secretary must do that. Equally, the Home Secretary has no power to relocate an individual away from an area if she judges that to be necessary. I hope that we will soon debate that aspect as well.
	The nagging concern that hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I hope—have is what happens when the Home Secretary has intelligence about an individual
	that requires a certain measure to be put in place, and she cannot do so because it is not in schedule 1. The good news since we considered the issue in Committee is that the Home Secretary has clearly recognised that there may be circumstances where the list of measures in schedule 1 is not sufficient, and she has now published draft legislation, the enhanced TPIMs Bill, that will allow relocation and curfew and will prevent access to mobile phones and the internet where that is necessary. I support the fact that in that Bill she is giving herself the powers to introduce an enhanced TPIM if Parliament is dissolved and she judges it necessary at the time.
	The bad news is that the only way that the Home Secretary could exercise these enhanced powers when Parliament is sitting is via fresh primary legislation. I assume that the Home Secretary intends that there should be a rigorous process of pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to the enhanced TPIMs Bill that has been published. Presumably it will be scrutinised by a cross-party Committee and presumably the Committee will be made up of Members from both Houses. Perhaps the House will consider making the Committee Chair a well-respected Cross Bencher, such as a former Cabinet Secretary with huge experience of Government business. The Committee would be expected to take evidence from all the experts and, on the basis of that evidence, it would then be asked to come to a unanimous view on the matters before it.
	That is what we did just a few weeks ago in relation to the draft legislation on pre-charge detention—exactly that process. The report, which I know the Minister will have read with great care, concludes that the route of using emergency legislation in that way is unsatisfactory and unreliable. Those are not my words; those are the words of the Joint Committee, having considered the evidence very carefully, indeed.
	There are at least three major problems with the route that the Minister wishes to take. First, there is the wide variation in the threshold, or the trigger, that will apply to the emergency legislation, and it is not good enough for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he will not second-guess the circumstances in which it may be necessary. He is the Minister who, along with the Home Secretary, will decide whether the legislation should be brought before the House.
	Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, in evidence to the Joint Committee, said that it would take a national catastrophe before emergency legislation could be brought forward. Other experts thought that such legislation might be necessary in one or two individual cases. In either scenario, it will be wholly unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) made the point very clearly: if we have had the national catastrophe, we have missed the boat.
	The whole point of the enhanced TPIMs legislation is to prevent a catastrophe in the first place, so are we really meant to believe that we need the whole panoply of primary legislation going through this House and the House of Lords, with all the necessary deliberations, on the basis of one or two individual cases? I regard that almost as an abuse of the parliamentary process.
	Secondly, the passage of legislation would be fraught with difficulties. The individuals who are subject to control orders now and who will be subject to TPIMs in
	future are subject precisely because there is intelligence on them that cannot be shared in an open court and, therefore, certainly cannot be shared in an open debate in Parliament. The Home Secretary would therefore be able to tell us almost nothing about the detail of what had led her to the conclusion that emergency legislation was necessary, and anything she said say in the debate would have to be said with great care.
	Members from both sides of the House talk of the need always to prosecute criminal charges where possible, but in such a debate the Home Secretary might say something that prejudiced a future trial—if at a later date there were a successful attempt to bring a prosecution. So the practical passage of any Bill through Parliament would be fraught with difficulty. Parliament would also be none the wiser when it considered such legislation, because it could not be told anything about the specific circumstances that had led the Home Secretary to conclude that such measures were necessary.
	Thirdly, and importantly, there is the issue of practicality, on which there is considerable detail in the Joint Committee’s report. I should have thought that this Home Secretary would have learned a lesson about emergency legislation from the past few months, because she had to introduce some on police bail to the House, and she got it through by the skin of her teeth—a couple of weeks before we went into recess. I asked her then what she would have done if we had been in recess and had needed emergency legislation, and the question arises again. If she concludes that an enhanced TPIM is necessary and we are in recess, will she recall Parliament so that we can have an enhanced regime for one or two individual cases?
	I support the new clauses that the Minister has introduced, and I welcome the fact that he has seen it necessary and important to ensure that, when Parliament has been dissolved, the Home Secretary can make an enhanced order, because Parliament cannot be recalled in those circumstances.
	Let me remind the Minister that in Committee on 28 June he said that such an enhanced power
	“should not be introduced or passed until it is needed”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2011; c. 195.]
	But, if that is the point at which the legislation is brought to the House, and if there is then consideration, deliberation and Royal Assent a week later, a week later may be seven days too late. The Minister should consider that point carefully.
	The Minister gave his view about the four amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he is quite right that amendment 4 is superfluous, because he has accepted the arguments in relation to Dissolution, so I will not pursue it.
	On amendment 1, the Minister is right to say that as a result of the Bill the Home Secretary is empowered to take additional measures: she does not have to come back to Parliament; she can just take them, because the legislation gives her the power to do so. I am reflecting carefully on what right hon. and hon. Members have said about the need for parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, however, because there would not be any direct accountability to Parliament.
	There would be direct accountability in relation to amendment 2, because the Secretary of State would be able to introduce the additional measures only by order,
	meaning that she would have to come to Parliament, send the order through both Houses and gain the affirmation of both. The problem with that process is the same as the problem with primary legislation: it all means delay and time, which she may not have; she may need to put the condition into a TPIM immediately. That is a concern for me, even though I speak in favour of amendment 2.
	Amendment 3, however, is worthy of more consideration than the Minister’s brief summary of it. It would allow the Home Secretary to introduce additional measures in an urgent or emergency situation, but crucially she would be able to do so immediately, because proposed subparagraph (2) would give her the power to do so with “immediate effect”. In bringing it forward with immediate effect, however, she would have to submit to parliamentary scrutiny, and both Houses would at a later date have to affirm to her decision to invoke the additional measures. Indeed, if either House declined to give such affirmation, the Home Secretary’s original decision would fall, so amendment 3 would give her the immediate powers that she would need to impose the conditions, but it would also provide for some degree of scrutiny by Parliament at a later date.

Julian Huppert: I am following the right hon. Gentleman very carefully. Is he arguing that the Secretary of State should be able to do anything that he or she wants, but that, if Parliament later gets around to saying that it disagrees, because of course there is no time limit on when it has to agree, the condition has to end? Until that point, any measure whatever could be imposed on somebody who had not been convicted of any crime. Is that what he is arguing for?

Paul Goggins: I want the Home Secretary, having the insight, information and intelligence that she has and knowing the risks involved, to have the power to do something about the situation—and to do so immediately. It is important that there is some accountability to Parliament at a later date, and under amendment 3, when Parliament considered the matter at a later stage, it would be possible for either the House of the Lords or this House to decline to give an affirmation, at which point the power would lapse. It is important also, however, that the Home Secretary has the power to act.
	This is a very interesting situation. Here am I, an Opposition Member, trusting the Home Secretary to exercise her judgment as the Home Secretary in relation to individual cases, and, by the way, her record on relocation in particular is first-class, and I applaud the way in which she has pursued the two cases that we know about. So I trust her judgment. Interestingly, however, her right hon. and hon. Friends do not seem to share my confidence in her. I trust her to exercise her judgment. She has access to intelligence and information, and she has a huge responsibility. I do not want to tie her hands so that she has a limited range of powers and is unable to exercise her responsibilities properly; I want to give her the powers that she needs.

Hazel Blears: Government Members seem to forget that because we live in a country that has a proper judicial system, should the Home Secretary exceed the reasonable use of her powers and impose a condition on somebody who is subject to a TPIM that is not
	justified by the evidence, it would be a matter for the judges. An application could be made to say that the specific measure was outwith the terms of the legislation. In every order, the Home Secretary has to show that the particular measures that she is imposing are necessary for the protection of the public. The idea that the Home Secretary could act in an arbitrary manner, without reference to the information and intelligence that she has, is absolutely ludicrous. The process will be subject to proper judicial oversight in our democratic country.

Paul Goggins: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has once again had the opportunity to remind us all of that oversight, which is not flimsy, but stringent.

Julian Huppert: First, I was going to comment that I have perhaps had experience of more Home Secretaries whom I did not trust on these issues than those I did. Perhaps that will change over the years and there will be more Home Secretaries who are more trustworthy on civil liberties. I hope that that is the case.
	There is a point about judicial oversight, but there is also a point about Parliament having the chance to comment on what powers it thinks are acceptable. There is a range of things that the Home Secretary could argue are necessary but that Parliament would find simply unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that under—

Nigel Evans: Order. The interventions in this debate are rather long. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to let the hon. Gentleman in for a second bite.

Paul Goggins: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion now, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I have worked with a number of Home Secretaries and I have seen this Home Secretary in operation. They—even those colleagues in my party—have represented a range of different political views, but I have trusted every single one of them with the difficult decisions that they have had to make about terrorist suspects and others. That is bar none, including the current holder of the post. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. We have to trust our senior politicians sometimes. That has to be within limits, of course, such as the judicial scrutiny and the powers in the Bill.
	Frankly, I think that this Government are in the worst of all places. They have acknowledged that the measures in schedule 1 may not be sufficient in certain circumstances, yet they are tying the Secretary of State’s hands behind her back and will not give her the powers that she needs against the risk posed by a small number of individuals. The Government are in a terrible place and they need to think intelligently to get themselves out of it.

Julian Huppert: Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly given that I went on slightly too long. I apologise for that.
	I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) in that I am uncomfortable with new clause 5, but it is for completely different reasons, as he might imagine. On the issue of
	trusting the Home Secretary, it is not a question of trusting an individual; I would not trust anybody with that kind of power unchecked by this Parliament. For me, that is a matter of principle, and it is not a reflection on any individual. I am quite sure, despite what was said earlier in the debate, that I will never have that responsibility—I am sure that he is very glad about that—but I would not trust myself to have those powers either.
	I would like the Minister to clarify some issues, because we have not had the chance to go through this in detail in Committee. I am uncomfortable with the idea of having emergency legislation to step up the powers, because I simply cannot envisage any circumstance in which I would want to see it used. However, in the review the Government have taken the line that there are some hard to foresee possibilities where it might be needed. If that is the case, I think it is right to proceed in this way. I do not necessarily agree with the Government and would have liked the review to have gone even further, but I can understand where they are coming from.
	If that is where we are coming from, there is clearly a need to have some way of installing the measure when Parliament is not sitting. Some have misunderstood this point as meaning that the power will be available to the Secretary of State when Parliament is in recess. It is clear that if the situation was so urgent that we needed to reduce the civil liberties that we give people during recess, we should be recalled. It would be important that we were recalled. However, there is a difference when there is no Parliament that can be recalled. If there is to be such a system, although I am not happy about it, I am pleased with this system and understand it. I am also pleased that the Government have accepted the need for parliamentary scrutiny. That is a move forward from their previous position, as I mentioned earlier.
	There are a few things that I would like to understand about how the system will work. First, the clause does not say enough for my taste about what kind of emergency would be required for the Secretary of State to take such a temporary power during a period when there was no Parliament. There is the term “by reason of urgency”. Perhaps I am naive about how parliamentary legislation works, but I would like to hear more about the fact that it must be a serious case and not just something that has to be done now. There is a difference between “urgent” and “important”, as we all know. There is also a difference between “urgent” and “emergent”, if that is a valid word to use—I am sure that Hansard will tell me.
	I would like to know why the Minister has chosen not to use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 in this case. I am sure that he will be able to give a detailed response to that.
	I am also interested to understand what sort of consultation there would be if the Secretary of State were to make an order during such a time, whether in terms of statute or a commitment from the Government. We must bear it in mind that we are talking about the time of a general election, when there might be particularly fevered political debate. I am sure that this would not happen with any Home Secretary whom we can envisage,
	but the power could be used as a political gambit—as a tool to show how tough they are on the causes of crime. What sort of consultation would there be? Would there be some kind of Privy Council process through which a few people are nominated to be asked? Would there be judicial oversight of the process? How would that work and what safeguards would there be?
	I notice that under new clause 6, a temporary enhanced TPIM order will last for 90 days. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is 90 days. It seems to me that the starting point should be the shortest period possible until fresh legislation can be passed. That would include the period of the election until after the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps there could be a time period after the Queen’s speech, even though it may not be done on day one. I would like it to be as short a time as possible and would at least like some justification for it being 90 days.
	I will say a little about Opposition amendments 1 to 4. I am keen that the enhanced emergency powers should not be available easily. I do not want them gradually to become one of the normal things that a Home Secretary uses, with one having to be used slightly unexpectedly and then one being quite useful on another occasion, until gradually they become more common, as has happened with so many other things. For that reason I disagree, as I am sure Opposition Members will not be surprised, with giving the Home Secretary these powers, whether under amendment 1 with no parliamentary checks, under amendment 2 with an order first—I would rather see the whole, tougher parliamentary process, rather than a simple order—or under amendment 3 with the retrospective orders.
	I am still concerned about proposed new subsection (2) in amendment 3, which says that the Secretary of State can make an order and essentially do anything they want, subject to judicial checks, with it being approved retrospectively and with no time limit. If they wished, the Government could make sure that the Commons and the Lords did not get around to voting on it for a year or two years. That is a real concern. I will not say anything further on amendment 4 because the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has made it clear that it has been subsumed.
	This again seems to be an effort by the Opposition to keep as much as possible of control orders. It is clear that what they would like is for control orders to continue ad infinitum. If they cannot have that, they want either TPIMs with control order powers or control orders for a bit longer followed by TPIMs with control order powers, or some such mixture. For those reasons, I disagree with their proposals.
	I will not vote against the Government’s new clauses because I understand where they are coming from. I hope that the Minister will respond on the detail. I hope that the other place will have more of a chance to consider these important issues on how we deal with emergency rules during the period of a general election when there has been a serious terrorist attack. That is a complex set of things that bears more attention than we are able to give it here.

Pat McFadden: I will keep my remarks brief, because I know we all want to get on to the debate about relocation. However, I wish to say a word about new clause 5, which shows the difference between the Bill
	before us and what the Government know they might have to do. The new clause and the draft Bill on enhanced TPIMs measures published last Thursday represent the Government taking out an insurance policy against the failure of the Bill before us this evening.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us that we are debating the matter around the 10th anniversary of 11 September. It is important that the House remembers that, because that incident, more than any other, forced Governments around the world to reassess their thinking and their expectations of what terrorists were capable of. It also forced all of us in democratic regimes to look again at the protections in law and law enforcement that we can give our citizens against terrorist activity. That is the basis of this whole debate and the Bill.
	We did not get here entirely by choice. We got here partly because of court judgments shaping the regime for us in an involuntary way. The problem is simple: what do we do when we cannot bring someone to prosecution, but we have a good and reasonable suspicion that that person would engage in terrorist activity if they could, and there may be inadmissible evidence that they have tried to do so? There has been an assumption running through this debate that such people are necessarily less dangerous than those who have been convicted. That is not necessarily so. If they were able to carry out their intent, they may in fact be far more dangerous than people who have been convicted of other terrorist events.
	The Government have published draft legislation that is an insurance policy against the Bill, and they cannot have an in-principle objection to the measures within their own draft Bill. Whereas the Bill before us states, unbelievably, that the Secretary of State must grant terrorist suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, the draft Bill would give the Secretary of State discretion over that. Whereas the Bill before us disarms the Government from giving the public the protection that relocation can provide, the draft Bill would reinsert that possibility. The question that the public will ask, and which the Minister must believe they will ask very seriously should the draft legislation be needed in future, is why the Government did not include those powers in the Bill before us. Why wait until an incident has happened?
	I repeat the question that I put to the Minister before. What would he say to the victims of terrorism in such circumstances? Would he say, “We knew we might need these powers, and we could have legislated for them, but we chose not to because we believed that the balance of civil liberties was wrong”?

Richard Fuller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Pat McFadden: Not at the moment.
	Let us deal with the point about civil liberties. The Minister has said several times that the motivation behind the Bill was a perceived imbalance in the last Government’s civil liberties legislation. The notion that we are some sort of quasi-police state or overly authoritarian state is complete nonsense. In this country we enjoy freedom of expression, religion and association that is the envy of the world. That is why so many dissidents from regimes around the world have sought refuge here.
	Indeed, the criticism that is sometimes levelled, and perhaps with validity, is that we have been very generous in accommodating dissidents from other regimes, and that sometimes our freedoms have been abused by some of those individuals. It is simply the wrong analysis and the wrong starting point to say that civil liberties in this country have been fundamentally compromised. That is not the case, but because the Government believe it and have carried forward into government the wrong analysis that they developed in opposition, that is leading to the wrong policy and to greater risk for the public. New clause 5 addresses that to some extent, but people will not understand why it, and the draft emergency legislation, were not put into the Bill.

Shabana Mahmood: I am conscious of the time and the fact that we have to get on to new clause 1, on relocation, ahead of Third Reading, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.
	I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about the draft Bill. He spoke having been a member of the Committee that considered the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extensions) Bill, the findings of which are important and directly relevant to the draft emergency legislation that the Government printed a few days ago. As he pointed out, although that Committee understood the Government’s reasons for proposing that contingency powers to extend the maximum period for pre-charge detention should be provided in primary legislation so that they could be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it still found a number of problems. Those problems exist also in relation to the draft enhanced TPIMs Bill, and it is important that we take a moment to remind ourselves of what the objections were.
	The first objection was in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of a draft Bill as primary legislation. The debate that would take place would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing primary legislation that it would not be possible for the House to be given proper reasons why we needed to proceed along that route. In relation to the 28-day detention powers, the risk was that a court case might be prejudiced. In this case the objection is even more important, because we are talking about intelligence evidence that has been gathered by the security services, which of course cannot be discussed openly. That is the whole reason why we have closed sessions of courts to consider such matters—they cannot enter into the public domain. That rather defeats the purpose of having any debate on the Floor of the House.
	The second objection was that there would be an unacceptable degree of risk that it would be impossible to introduce and pass the legislation quickly when Parliament was in recess. Although that objection referred to the 28-day detention power, it is also important in this case. Counter-terror investigations are fast-moving, and it is not acceptable to say to the police that their reaction to investigations should be hampered while Parliament debates the matter, perhaps in a limited way, and decides to pass an Act. That would not be an acceptable way to proceed.
	The third objection related to the period when Parliament has been dissolved, but as we can see, that is precisely what new clauses 5 and 6 are intended to address.
	I say to the Minister that it is clear from the draft Bill that the Government have no principled objection to the control order powers that would suddenly be available once again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, the draft Bill is an insurance policy that the Government are taking out on their TPIMs regime, which will decrease and weaken the powers available to the police and the Home Secretary to control the behaviour of terror suspects. It is extremely unacceptable for legislation to be conducted in such a way. Control order powers are either needed or they are not. This Bill has used up many hours of parliamentary time to take us round in a circle and bring us back to exactly where we started, with control orders.
	Rather than introduce this confused and fudged Bill, which raises many more questions, the Government should have been honest and admitted that sometimes, stringent control order measures such as relocation and 16-hour curfews are necessary. They should therefore have put them in the Bill that we are debating today.
	I am afraid that the “argument on context”—that there is a standard context that would require only the standard TPIM, and an emergency context in which the enhanced TPIM might be required—does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny, because control orders and TPIMs, if they are introduced, are at the emergency end of what we do. They are not brought in lightly and have always been emergency measures.
	I was disappointed that the Minister chose to describe control orders, and indeed TPIMs, as “business as usual”. That was a disappointing way of characterising them: it was lazy and potentially dangerous, because it implies that it is par for the course to apply such measures, and that that happens in the normal run of things. Control orders never happened in the normal run of things; they were and always have been exceptional. TPIMs will also be exceptional, so saying that they are an exceptional version of something that is already exceptional, or for use in an “emergency emergency”, simply will not work. The Minister should be up front with the House and the public on that point.
	The framework in which we expect our police and security services to operate is also important. In our discussion on sunset clauses, the Minister spoke of the importance of a settled position, so that the police can plan, but the provisions are creating a more unsettled position, which prompts the question of how the police can plan for the terrorist risk that we face. We should have a more settled framework, but the draft legislation does not bring that about—it raises many more questions.
	When replying to the debate I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the specifics of when those powers will be used. In particular, would the circumstances of the case of CD trigger the passing of the draft Bill? That individual was relocated because he needed to be removed from London, where he was trying to gather weapons and engage in a Mumbai-style attack. Would that be an emergency situation in which the Home Secretary would choose to trigger the draft Bill?
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked whether the mere fact that we are having the Olympics next year would be enough to trigger the draft Bill. What if resources are stretched? What if the impact of
	the cuts is too great for the police, even given the additional resources that will be available to them under the TPIMs regime? Would that be classed as an emergency that requires the passing of the draft Bill? We need clear answers from the Minister on how that will work. Without them, the House will be expected to legislate in the dark, which is an unacceptable way for us to proceed.
	The Opposition do not want the Secretary of State to be in a position in which she does not have the powers she needs to cope with an emergency when Parliament is dissolved, so we will not oppose Government new clauses 5 or 6. However, we have grave concerns about how the Government are proceeding with their draft legislation. They are exposing the fiction that has been at the heart of the control orders debate, which is based more on a political fudge than on an assessment of the security needs of the country. We need clearer answers from the Government on that point.

James Brokenshire: I am not quite sure how to respond to the lack of coherence in the previous contribution—the Opposition fundamentally oppose something, but then say that they support new clauses 5 and 6—but I shall seek to respond to the points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
	I again return to the counter-terrorism review. The measures are not a surprise—it is not as though they were not set out clearly back when the counter-terrorism reported in the early part of this year. The review concluded that
	“there may be exceptional circumstances where it could be necessary for the Government to seek Parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. In the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means more stringent measures may be required.”
	Therefore, to suggest that this situation has just happened and that it was not foretold highlights the lack of reading of the counter-terrorism review when it was published earlier this year.
	The Government consider that the enhanced powers will not routinely be needed, and that the standard TPIM Bill will provide robust powers to protect the public. We also consider that there may be circumstances in which more stringent powers will be needed. However, such powers should be introduced only at that time—they should not be routinely available on the statute book.
	Obviously I accept that there is a clear difference of opinion. During previous contributions from Opposition Front Benchers, I was minded to believe that control orders were the default. That appeared to be the approach taken by the previous Government, which is why this Government undertook our counter-terrorism review and why we have sought to rebalance the provisions contained in the legislation.
	I appreciate the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about the term “exceptional circumstances”. As I have said, that would be when we are faced with a serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means. It would be inappropriate to say, “Would it apply in this or that control order case?” I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture, and the circumstances might be hard to predict. However, credible reporting could point to a series of concurrent attack plots, all of which appear imminent, or it might apply in the wake of a major terrorist attack when there is the prospect of further
	attacks to follow. Parliament will need to approve the emergency legislation for it to come into force. Ultimately, therefore, it would be for Parliament to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional in that way.
	In response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I would highlight the fact that clearly there are additional safeguards for the new clauses to cover the period during a general election, when the House is unable to pass emergency legislation. The enhanced measures will be subject to a higher legal test. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity on the balance of probabilities, which is a higher threshold than reasonable belief, which is the test for imposing standard TPIMs.
	The comprehensive judicial oversight of standard TPIM notices will also apply to the enhanced measures, including a requirement for court permission before imposing measures; an automatic and full High Court review of the decision to impose the enhanced TPIM notice, and each of the measures specified in it; and rights of appeal against decisions taken by the Secretary of State when the measures are in force. Therefore, the intent is that the broader safeguards will apply in the context of those situations.
	I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge says about his discomfort with the contexts in which we would need such provisions. We are all in that situation. Equally, we have considered carefully the potential of alternatives. He highlighted the possibilities of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. However, careful reflection on both sides of the House leads us to consider that that would not be a useful or usable route in dealing with the circumstances that we are contemplating. The 2004 Act has been considered on both sides of the House, but its mechanisms and its structure do not lend themselves easily to the scenarios and situations in which we would consider using TPIMS—indeed, the Act was in many ways directed more to dealing with floods, epidemics and those sorts of problems. Although I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point, as hon. Members have done in the past, we consider that the 2004 Act does not provide a workable mechanism to cover such circumstances.
	We believe that the draft emergency Bill would provide a mechanism to deal with a situation while Parliament was either sitting or in recess, although we accept the need to legislate in this Bill to cover a period during a general election. I am pleased to note that the Opposition are prepared to support the new clauses that are contemplated, although clearly there are differences over the emergency Bill itself. However, a Joint Committee will obviously be established to consider, scrutinise and examine the matter in detail in the way one would expect from the House and no doubt to improve, make suggestions and make amendments to the daft Bill.

Mark Durkan: The Minister has talked about these extra bat belt powers, shall we say, that might be available to the Home Secretary and activated by a draft Bill. I have a question about the parliamentary situation that would then be created. If those powers were activated in relation to a particular threat, hon. Members would receive all sorts of instructions and advice not to mention specific cases in the Chamber, but the chances are that the media would be full of suggestions and innuendos
	against particular individuals or locations. In those circumstances, how would Parliament discharge the awkward responsibilities that the clause would give it? The Opposition in the previous Parliament made exactly those valid arguments against the then Government’s measures in respect of 42-day detention activated on the basis of parliamentary approval.

James Brokenshire: I know that the hon. Member has made that point before. I responded to him then as well. I think that the House is able to debate the principle of the underlying issues, although in relation to detailed, confidential briefings and so on, we would seek to provide more detailed information to Opposition spokespeople on privy counsellor terms, as appropriate, in order to assist debate. However, we believe that Parliament is able to consider emergency legislation in that way. In many ways, it is important to put out the draft legislation now to ensure that there is a mechanism—a tool—that has been considered coolly and calmly outside some of the febrile situations that understandably arise in the sorts of horrendous situations that, sadly, we have seen in the past. That is why it is important that we have the scrutiny that would be applied by a Joint Committee—and obviously it is for the House to resolve the matters around that. That is an important way of ensuring that legislation is considered in a more rational way.

Paul Goggins: The Minister has been very generous in giving way this evening. He has refused to be drawn on “second-guessing”, as he put it, the level of threat that would lead him or the Home Secretary to believe that these enhanced TPIM powers were necessary. However, he said that part of his consideration would be whether the threat was “imminent”—that was the word he used. An “imminent threat” could mean the next 12 hours, the next 24 hours, the next 48 hours or the next week. How does he square that level of risk with the fact that he is prepared to put measures in the Bill that would require separate primary legislation that might take at least a week to procure—perhaps even longer during recess? How can he square those two things? In my view, they simply cannot be squared.

James Brokenshire: It was precisely to ensure that legislation could be secured quickly that we have published the draft Bill now—to aid in that consideration and to ensure that matters could be dealt with swiftly. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the principle of emergency legislation, and I know that he has taken that approach consistently. There is a difference of view about the enhanced powers and the basis on which they are set, and I do not think that we are likely to resolve that difference between us.
	We believe that the provisions in the Bill are appropriate, and that they provide the necessary assurances about the risks and enhanced capabilities that the police and security services will have. However, as I have said, we sadly have to accept that there may be exceptional circumstances, which is precisely why we believe that it is appropriate for the Government to put in place the measures in the Bill and the draft Bill published last
	week. I am not going to second-guess anything, however, and I very much look forward to the scrutiny that will be applied to that draft Bill in the weeks ahead.
	This has been a useful debate on a number of issues that I am sure the Joint Committee will consider further in relation to the draft Bill. I welcome the support for the new clauses contemplated in this group. It is, in our judgment, the appropriate way to proceed in framing the powers available under the TPIM Bill and why we equally believe, given the nature of the impositions that would otherwise be imposed, that those measures should be put on a different basis, why Parliament should be engaged in activating those measures in extreme circumstances and why we have sought to structure the Bill and the draft emergency Bill in the way that we have.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Temporary power: supplementary provision

‘(1) A temporary enhanced TPIM order, except for designated transitional and saving provision, ceases to have effect—
	(a) at the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State makes the order, or
	(b) at such earlier time (if any) as is specified in the order.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order revoke some or all of a temporary enhanced TPIM order if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so (whether or not the Secretary of State would have power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order by virtue of section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(1)).
	(3) As soon as practicable after making—
	(a) a temporary enhanced TPIM order, or
	(b) an order revoking any provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order,
	the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the order that has been made.
	(4) Anything which has been done by virtue of a temporary enhanced TPIM order is not affected by the temporary enhanced TPIM order ceasing to have effect.
	(5) In section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures) and this section—
	“appropriate”, in relation to variations, or other provision, means such variations, or such other provision, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
	“designated transitional and saving provision” means provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which is designated, in a temporary enhanced TPIM order, as transitional and saving provision for the purposes of this section;
	“enactment” includes—
	(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978,(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation, and(d) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;
	“enhanced measure” has the meaning given in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(3);
	“enhanced TPIM notice” means notice by which the enhanced TPIM power is exercised;
	“enhanced TPIM power” means the power to impose enhanced measures that is referred to in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(2);
	“relevant provisions of this Act” mean all the provisions of this Act, apart from—
	(a) section1 (abolition of control orders),(b) section5(2) and (3) (extension of TPIM notices),(c) section13(6)(a) (revival of TPIM notice after expiry),(d) sections (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers) (expiry and repeal of TPIM powers) and section (section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision) (section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision),(e) section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures) and this section,(f) section25 (financial and supplemental provision,(g) section27(1) and (2) (short title and commencement), and(h) Schedules7 (minor and consequential amendments) and8 (transitional and saving provision);
	“standard TPIM notice” means a notice under section2;
	“temporary enhanced TPIM order” has the meaning given in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(2).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Relocation of terrorist suspects

‘The Secretary of State may include in a TPIM Notice a requirement that an individual shall reside at a specified address in any place in the United Kingdom if the conditions in paragraphs (a) or (b) are met—
	(a) the Secretary of State must reasonably believe that the individual is more likely to be involved in terrorism-related activity if he resides at his own residence, or
	(b) the individual is more likely to be involved in terrorism-related activity if he resides in a locality in the United Kingdom with which he has a connection.’.—(Hazel Blears.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2 —Relocation of terrorist suspects (No. 2)
	‘(1) The Secretary of State may impose a requirement for relocation on the individual if the Secretary of State has a reasonable belief that the individual will engage in terrorism-related activity if the individual remains at their current location.
	(2) The individual may be relocated for residence purposes to a locality deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State and in line with this locality being a place or area of a specified description.
	(3) This measure may remain in place for the duration of the TPIM.’.
	Government amendment 16.
	Amendment 5,page16,line21, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
	Amendment 6,page16,line24, at end insert—
	‘(c) any other premises specified by the Secretary of State under section 2A(1)’.
	Government amendments 17 and 18.
	Amendment 7,page18,line11, at end insert—
	‘(3) A specified area or place or a specified description of an area or place may include the individual’s own residence or a locality with which the individual has a connection in accordance with paragraph 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b).’.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that my new clause has been selected. The Minister will know from our lengthy debates in Committee that this is the issue about which I feel most passionately and which I believe is one of the biggest flaws in the Bill. The Government’s decision not to have a power of relocation is fundamentally flawed and flies in the face of the evidence, of logic and not only of my personal views, but of the views of some very, very knowledgeable and experienced people in the police, of Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, and Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary—a range of people who feel that the Government are limiting their options for controlling suspected terrorists and providing the public with the security and protection that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to try to achieve.
	My new clause 1 is a simple and straightforward measure that would provide that the Secretary of State may include in a TPIM notice the power to direct that a terrorist suspect should reside at a specific address that is not his home address or an address with which he has a connection, as is provided for in current legislation. To tie the Home Secretary’s hands in providing that a suspected terrorist has either to live at home or in the area where his known associates are gathered is absolutely ludicrous. Therefore, my amendment would provide that the Secretary of State may direct that the suspected terrorist is relocated to a different area so that they can be properly monitored and the public protected.

Richard Fuller: The right hon. Lady made a forceful opening to her comments, and I am interested to listen further. In her advocacy of enforced relocation, has she looked for inspiration to other democratic countries that forcibly relocate people who have not been subject to a trial?

Hazel Blears: There is a range of examples of countries that have attempted to deal with the threat for international terrorism with different legal provisions. France is often cited as a place where people are brought to trial under the criminal justice system. People are often held for months, if not years, under the investigatory process adopted by an inquiring magistrate. Indeed, the powers in some European countries are perhaps more draconian—the hon. Gentleman’s words, not mine—than any that we have ever had on our statute book. Therefore, to try to portray our country as one that does not accord with the rule of law or have effective judicial oversight, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has on a number of occasions, is an absolute travesty when we look at the real circumstances.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I shall enjoy the opportunity to ask her the question again. The question was not about draconian measures. She is advocating a specific measure—forced relocation—and my question was specific. What other democratic countries has she used as her inspiration
	for this measure—which she makes out to be so important—which involves the forced relocation of people who have not been convicted in a trial?

Hazel Blears: I have not used any other country as my inspiration. What I have used, as my commitment in new clause 1, is a genuine analysis of the evidence provided by the police and other experienced people in the field in asking what measures we can take to ensure that the public are properly protected from the serious harm intended them by some of the most dangerous people in this country. It is right and proper that our Parliament should decide of its own volition what the appropriate measures are. We do not always look to other countries, which have very different legal systems to ours. I am absolutely convinced that the power of relocation can add to the security of this nation, which is my prime and most important concern when looking at this legislation.
	I want to emphasise the point that the kind of people subject to either control orders or, in future, TPIMs are unfortunately some of the most dangerous people we could ever have to deal with in this country. There has been some suggestion that people who have been prosecuted through the criminal justice system are somehow more dangerous than those who are subject to administrative orders. If hon. Members looked at the judgments of High Court or Court of Appeal judges who have seen the intelligence and the information about the people upon whom we seek to impose such orders, they would perhaps revise their position. There are currently only 12 such individuals subject to control orders, and the expressions used by judges in relation to them include “trained soldiers” and “committed terrorists”, determined to be martyrs to their cause and determined, whatever steps we take, to cause the maximum harm to innocent people in this country. Those are statements by judges, not given to florid language, having seen the intelligence that the services hold in relation to some of those people. We are talking about a maximum of a dozen people who are very dangerous indeed. That is the measure that we must use in asking what the powers that we are seeking to use are, whether they are proportionate and whether they are the right powers. It is my submission that the power of relocation of some of the most dangerous people in our country—committed terrorists—is actually a proportionate power to use.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give more details later about the case of BM, which involved one of the two relocation appeals challenged by the Home Secretary, successfully on both occasions. To underline what she has just said, BM conceded in the hearing that took place—this was not a point made by the security services; he conceded it—that he is indeed
	“committed to terrorism, in particular to terrorism in Pakistan”,
	and that he
	“wishes to carry out that commitment by travelling to that region”
	to take part in terrorist acts himself. It is by his own admission that that is the level of threat that he poses.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in that case BM did concede that he was determined to carry out terrorist activity, and it was right that the
	power of relocation, which the Home Secretary had imposed relatively recently, was upheld as a necessary power to protect the public. This is not a case of draconian Governments, or authoritarian or totalitarian regimes wanting to impose controls for their own sake; it is always a matter of balance, and trying to mitigate the risk and draw the line in the correct place, so that we can maintain essential freedoms in this country, which include the freedom of the public to go about their law-abiding business without being threatened with death and destruction by some of the most committed terrorists in this country.

Pat McFadden: My right hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech about the reality of the situations that we face. Let me quote to her what the judge said about relocation in the case of CD:
	“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. While he is living in London there is a significant risk that he will take part in terrorism-related activities, notwithstanding the high level of protection implicit in the obligations which are not under challenge.”
	Does she agree that that shows the danger? Will she also speculate about why the Government are so determined to deprive the public, whom we represent, of the protections afforded by the current relocation provisions?

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the case of CD. We had a long discussion in Committee about the need for a relocation clause and about the judge’s comments. Indeed, the judge in that case said that since CD’s return,
	“he has endeavoured to obtain firearms on a number of occasions from a number of associates for the purposes of putting into effect a planned terrorist attack, has held covert meetings with associates in relation to plans to use the firearms as part of his planned attack and has displayed a very high level of security awareness.”
	It was on those grounds that the judge decided that the relocation condition was absolutely appropriate in controlling CD’s activities. As for my right hon. Friend’s second question, about why the Government have been so reluctant to provide the Home Secretary with the power to relocate—not the duty to do so in every case, but the power where necessary—I believe that this is part of a political accommodation with the Liberal Democrats and that this will be revealed in all its rather distasteful details in due course.

Stephen Pound: Everyone in this House knows the wealth, depth and breadth of my right hon. Friend’s experience: she has seen evil in close quarters. However, does she not agree that we would not even need to discuss this issue if many of the people involved were deported and sent back to their countries of origin, as they should be? Would it not be a little more helpful if this multicoloured Government assisted us in that endeavour, in particular with memorandums of understanding, which they oppose so strongly? Then we would not have to worry about how many miles someone was from London, because they would be in Jordan.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend also has considerable experience in relation to terrorism and the necessary laws. We did our utmost to try to negotiate memorandums
	of understanding with other countries so that deportation could take place. We were successful in a number of cases, albeit perhaps not with as many countries as we wanted. Equally, however, he must acknowledge that unfortunately we now have the issue of domestic, home-grown terrorists—people who cannot be deported and who were brought up in this country. Therefore, we need laws that provide sufficient security for those circumstances, as well as for where terrorists come from abroad.
	I want to cite a bit of evidence, because evidence is important, and otherwise this debate is in danger of becoming a politician’s polemic. I want to quote again from the evidence that DAC Osborne gave us in Committee. I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for the poor man. I questioned him quite vigorously on relocation, and he said:
	“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult. Where the choice of residence will be and how many people are within an area will affect the complexities, but there are different environments that make policing easier or more difficult. People could choose to live in an area that was difficult to police in normal circumstances, and that would be even more difficult to police in relation to monitoring control order subjects.”
	He was then asked a very good question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). She asked whether
	“of all the measures available to you, is it fair to say that relocation is the most effective?”
	DAC Stuart Osborne, the national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, replied:
	“Overall it probably is, yes.”
	That response comes from someone who has been engaged in dealing with suspected terrorists on a day-to-day operational basis. He says that relocation is the most effective measure that he could have to help him to police in these circumstances and to protect the public. That is a very powerful submission indeed. He went on to say of the provisions in the Bill:
	“The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face”.––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 5-6.]
	DAC Osborne is a well respected police officer with considerable experience, and his views should be accorded some importance by the Government.
	We also heard evidence from Lord Howard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), I would not normally pray him in aid, but he said:
	“If you ask me my personal view, however, I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]
	Speaking from his experience as Home Secretary, he said that the provisions should be retained.
	Lord Carlile was the independent reviewer for 10 years; he has not come to the issue recently. He has looked at every single control order and talked to the people who are the subject of the orders. He has gone into immense detail. He told the Committee:
	“If an empirical decision has been made that somebody should be relocated and that decision has been upheld by the courts, there is generally a good reason for it. The risk is increased if one person has the relocation condition removed. If nine people have relocation conditions removed and therefore are all able to move closer either to one another, or to their contact to whom they would wish to be close, plainly you are right that there is an increased risk.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]
	There are currently nine control order suspects with a relocation condition.
	More than half the present suspects who are subject to a control order come from London, and if the legislation goes through we face the possibility that they could return to London before the Olympics. In my view, that is a totally unnecessary risk to take. It places layers of risk upon risk. What better circumstances could al-Qaeda want for a spectacular event than the Olympics, when the world’s eyes are upon us? Yet at the very same time, the Bill is proposing to deny the Home Secretary the power of a relocation clause that would ensure that some of those people would remain in other areas of the country—the midlands, Norwich, Leicester or wherever—and not congregate with their associates back in London, where they could resume their plotting and their attack capabilities.

Bob Stewart: I have asked this question of the Minister, but I have not yet had an answer. Would not enhanced TPIMs allow some form of internal exile or removal to another place? I ask because I am genuinely not sure, but if they would, we would at least have that provision in the legislation.

Hazel Blears: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question but not received a response to it. I have the utmost respect for his experience in these matters. He is almost unique among us in having had experience on the ground of effective surveillance and the need to control terrorist suspects. In Committee, he thought very carefully about these issues, and he has already said tonight that he is concerned about the question of resources and that he might well consider supporting the Opposition’s amendment. I would welcome it enormously if, having thought carefully about the relocation question, he felt able to support us on that as well, given his practical experience and amazing depth of understanding of these issues.
	I just want to say a word about why we have ended up in this ludicrous position. I say this with respect to the Minister. I respect him, and he does his job with incredible dedication and commitment, but in these circumstances he has ended up in a position that might well come back to haunt him. I think he knows that that position is untenable. Effectively, his decisions are flying in the face of the evidence of the police, of Lord Carlile and of a former Home Secretary, and they will leave him without the power to order relocation, should he need it.
	This brings us back to the language that the Liberal Democrats have used time and again in the debate on these issues. They have talked about house arrest and internal exile. It is my belief that the counter-terrorism review, which the Minister has sought to rely on to justify all the steps that he has taken, is a political accommodation. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats—

Tom Brake: rose —

Hazel Blears: I am going to make this point. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats said that they wanted to see the complete abolition of control orders because they were an insult to our civil liberties and to democratic society. They made that decision prior to coming into government and certainly without being privy to the available intelligence about these suspects. In fact, in his evidence, Lord Carlile said:
	“I have a concern about the genesis of this Bill. It arose from coalition politics—I am aware of the process that occurred—and it is a compromise…it is the sufficient lowest common multiple, and it will do. However, it does not provide as much public protection as control orders, and it would be foolish to ignore that fact.”
	He went on to say that
	“my party made a serious mistake in committing itself to the abolition of control orders. It made that mistake understandably, however, because it did not have the information at the time.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 21-22, Qs 66 and 67.]
	What we have seen is political rhetoric and a particular stance being taken by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, with the Conservative part finding itself in the unenviable position of trying to accommodate that situation. Because of the use of terms like “house arrest” and “internal exile”, the relocation powers became the centre around which this accommodation has had to be drawn.
	Let me say to the Minister that the deal that was done will lead us to bad legislation and it will come back to haunt us. I hope and pray that we do not have an incident in which somebody who has not been subjected to relocation is able to resume his contacts with his co-conspirators, to further a plot to attack this country and to execute that plot because there was no power to relocate that person to another part of the country. I hope and pray that that will never be the case. I would certainly not have made the decision to deny a Minister the right to make a relocation order in order to reach a political accommodation.
	In my view—I hope it is shared across the House and I hope the Minister shares it—national security is far too important to be the subject, as Lord Carlile said, of “coalition politics”. This should be about a clear-headed analysis of risk and the steps that need to be taken that are proportionate to mitigate that risk. At the forefront of our minds and reflected in every step we take should be the protection of this country’s innocent people so that they can walk the streets in safety and security.
	I do not believe that the decision to deny the power of relocation meets any of those tests. It is illogical. I can only believe that the Bill has no power of relocation because of a political accommodation designed to enable the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to save face by saying that it had done some kind of deal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are so angry about the prospect of a relocation clause being in the enhanced TPIMs Bill, because that would mean that the principle of a relocation clause had been conceded. I would be interested to know, particularly from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whether he will support the enhanced TPIMs Bill when it comes up for scrutiny. Perhaps he will tell us now.

Tom Brake: I am happy to intervene; I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would give way earlier. As to the enhanced TPIMs Bill, what we have said is that we would need to consider the extraordinary circumstances that applied at the time. Certainly neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) nor I can envisage the extraordinary circumstances that would apply in which relocation powers would be acceptable. We will have to wait and see what scenario might develop.

Hazel Blears: That is a very interesting reply—that a Liberal Democrat cannot envisage the exceptional circumstances in which a relocation power might be necessary. I look forward to the scrutiny and to finding out whether there will be harmony between both parts of the coalition on this issue. I believe that the fault line that is emerging will go deeper and deeper, and I am sure that it will begin to crack as the debate goes forward.
	My amendments are pretty straightforward. Ironically, the relocation power is available if there is police bail, but the amendments on police bail from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have not come forward. If police bail is granted, there is a relocation power. This is beyond the power of words to express. I cannot for the life of me see why a relocation power is acceptable if there is police bail, but not when we are dealing with a suspected terrorist, who might be one of the most dangerous people in the country. We can have a relocation power for someone involved in serious fraud or serious crime, but not for someone we suspect wants to harm hundreds of people through a terrorist act. Again, this defies logic. That is why I genuinely believe that this is the result of political accommodation not the result of a logical decision by Ministers.
	Amendments 5 and 6 are consequential to the new clause, but amendment 7 is slightly different, and I should welcome the Minister’s response to it. It seeks to ensure that it will be possible to exclude a terrorist suspect from an area although his own residence, or a residence with which he has a connection, may be in that area. At present there is a contradiction in the Bill. It is not clear whether the entitlement of a terrorist suspect to live in his own property, or in a property in an area where he has a connection, will take precedence over the exclusion power, or whether the exclusion power will take precedence over his right to remain in his own home.
	For example, if a terrorist suspect’s home were in east London, in the area of the Olympics, would he be allowed to live there, or could he be excluded? In Committee we were told that it would be possible to exclude people from the area of the Olympics—or, indeed, to exclude them from a whole borough of London, or even from the whole of Greater London. It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, if a terrorist suspect had a home in such a borough, or in London as a whole, the right of an individual to remain in his own home would take precedence over the exclusion power, and that strikes me as a gaping hole in the legislation. I must ask the Minister to think about that very carefully, and to consider supporting amendment 7 if he is certain that he wants the power to exclude people from areas of particular danger, which could include that around the Olympics.

Tom Brake: It gives me great pleasure to rise to oppose the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and first of all to
	deal with her oft-repeated allegation that getting rid of relocation is a sweetener for the Liberal Democrats. She quoted Lord Carlile, and clearly that is his view, but I should be interested to know what evidence he has to support his contention. Equally, the right hon. Lady might want to offset his view against that of Lord Macdonald. I think it incumbent on her to produce more evidence to support her allegation that a stitch-up or deal has been done on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. She was, of course, a member of the Bill Committee and she will have heard a number of Conservative Members speak out against powers of relocation, so I think she will know that it is incorrect to suggest that only Liberal Democrats are advancing this argument.
	The right hon. Lady says that she feels strongly about the issue. So do I. I wonder whether she has had a chance to talk to some of the people who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed because it was found that there was no genuine or strong evidence against them. I wonder whether she has heard from those people about the impact of relocation on them as individuals, and on their families. I think that if she wants to be fully informed about all aspects of the matter, she should hear from people who have subsequently been found to be innocent.
	As the right hon. Lady may know, I have heard from a reliable source that of the people who are currently held under control orders, probably two or three present a real and serious threat to United Kingdom security. I acknowledge that—clearly—a limited number of people do represent a serious threat, and I think that that is why the Government have rightly announced that the package of measures to get rid of relocation will include additional surveillance resources to ensure that security and safety are maintained.

Bob Stewart: If one or two people might create a threat, why are we tying the hands of the Home Secretary? The provision does not have to be used, but what worries me is that we might need it for just one or two people. Why should we decide that we cannot use such a facility?

Tom Brake: The reason I do not think we should use it is linked to what was said earlier about the term “internal exile”. I know that the right hon. Lady does not like the phrase “internal exile”, but in practice that is what we are talking about. She was asked whether she took inspiration from any democratic countries in adopting the policy of relocation and she said that she did not. I suspect that she may have found it hard to find inspiration in the extent to which other democratic countries allow such a policy, so she has been inspired herself to come forward with the proposal to reinstate relocation.
	That gets to the heart of what the debate is about. It is about where the balance between civil liberties and security lies and where we can achieve enhanced civil liberties at the same time as maintaining security. That is where the additional surveillance that the Government are putting in place kicks in.
	Therefore, I am happy to oppose the proposals. Relocation is to all intents and purposes internal exile. If the overriding threat scenario emerges at some point, we may have a debate about the enhanced powers in this
	place and in the Lords and that will be the appropriate way forward. We can then discuss whether relocation is required in those circumstances, but to have it on the statute book now as something that the Government could be tempted to adopt, would be regrettable. That is why I am happy to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause.

Shabana Mahmood: I am mindful of the time, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.
	I endorse the powerful contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She spoke with great passion about an issue that has concerned her for some time. It certainly concerned her in Committee, and it has concerned Opposition Front Benchers, too.
	Relocation has been a central issue in the debates that we have had about the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is one of the most important issues that we are taking forward on Report. New clause 1 seeks to add the power of relocation to the Bill to replicate the position in relation to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
	It is clear from the evidence that the relocation power has proved extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity. It is regularly described by police and others as one of the most useful and effective powers that they have under the control orders regime. We know that nine of the 12 current control orders have relocation as part of the control order.
	The importance of relocation as a measure to be made available to the police in meeting the terror threat was made clear at the evidence sessions held by the Public Bill Committee. We heard evidence from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne, for whom, like my right hon. Friend said, I am starting to feel slightly sorry. She quoted him, but I will repeat the important bit of the quote again because it will concentrate the mind of the House:
	“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult.”
	He added:
	“The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face, and managing those challenges will increase the resources that we need. The degree to which we are successful in managing them depends on both the extent of the Bill and the additional resources that we get.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 5-6, Qs 10 and 14.]
	The importance of relocation as a measure was further highlighted by Lord Howard and Lord Carlile. Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary, has described the power as the single most useful power in ensuring that the package of measures that we have is sufficient to keep us safe.
	It is clear from the evidence that the police gave to the Committee that the additional risk created by removing relocation from the TPIMs regime could be mitigated by the additional resources, but it would not be eliminated and there are of course degrees of mitigation. In Committee, DAC Osborne was only “hopeful” that the risk would not increase if the Bill were passed, which does not fill me with a huge amount of confidence.
	It is clear, and we must recognise, that there is an irreducible minimum number of people who pose a serious threat to our country and we have to have an adequate and effective way to manage that risk. Relocation is clearly an important part of that package of measures. It is our view that, if the new clause is added to the Bill, the policing challenge that DAC Osborne and others will face will be reduced and our collective security protected. It has always been our concern that if this Bill closes off the power of relocation to the Home Secretary—if it deprives her of being able to use that power—that would deprive her of an incredibly important tool in her kit bag for dealing with the threat posed by a very small number of people. For those reasons, we will support new clause 1 in the Division.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate.
	I listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) in her opening speech in support of her new clause, and it made me even more scared about giving Administrations a fiat on the treatment of people in our judicial system, rather than leaving that with the judges. On many occasions, both in this debate and in Committee, the right hon. Lady talked about the importance of balance, but I feel that, in the sharpness of her rhetoric and the blithe way challenges were laid down and comments were made about loosening and potentially putting us at risk, her speech did not betray any balance whatever. That highlights one of the risks in giving the Executive the power to restrain and control people who have not been brought to justice. Both in the specific instance of relocation and more generally in the tone of Opposition Members, a disservice is being done to this Government’s attempts to return us to some semblance of the traditions of British justice that we achieved before the period of the so-called “war on terror”—before 2001—and we should remember that control orders were not introduced until 2005, and that therefore they were not in place between 2001 and the Iraq war, which some would argue was the period of greatest risk.
	I wish to make a couple of comments on the specific issue of relocation. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady and I do not mean to pick on her; I am just picking on her point. I challenged her earlier about democratic countries from which she drew inspiration. I could not think of any either, so I did some research on a well-known search engine. I looked up forced relocation of individuals. Kazakhstan featured prominently. There were also a few honourable mentions for Cambodia—not the current Cambodian Government, but I think we can work out which Government—and for Burma. Kazakhstan, Cambodia and Burma are not exactly the paragons of virtue in this respect that I would like our Government to follow as they attempt to strike the difficult balance of maintaining both the security of the nation and the liberty of the individual.
	May I also refer to one not particularly tabloid-friendly comment on relocation? A number of Members have talked about meeting people who are subject to a control order or its equivalents and who have been subject to relocation. We must remember that those subject to control orders have not yet gone through full justice in
	our country. Many other countries, including the United States, have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Relocation has the most significant negative impact on the mental health of these individuals. In evidence in Committee, Dr Korzinski said:
	“What I am concerned about…is the absence of any sort of safeguards with respect to the impact on the mental health of the individuals who are subjected to these regimes. I can say quite unequivocally that it has been catastrophic in all the cases that I have worked on.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 43, Q121.]
	That may not be the most popular of reasons to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause, but there are also many others, such as support for our justice system and achieving that balance that she advocates, but which I do not think she spoke to today. I shall support the Government on this new clause.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made some powerful and important points in his succinct contribution.
	As I think the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) accepted in her opening comments, we are revisiting a subject that we debated in detail in the Public Bill Committee, when amendments with the same effect were tabled by Opposition Members and the same arguments were made in support of them. As was made clear following the carefully considered counter-terrorism review, despite the aspersions that the right hon. Lady seeks to cast, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate, without consent, to another part of the UK.
	The debate in Committee frequently turned to the question of balance—specifically, the balance between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. This is an area where there is a very careful balance to be struck, and where views on where the right balance is may differ. The previous Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of a wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions available under the Bill, together with the significantly increased funding we are providing for covert investigation, will allow us to protect the public effectively without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach departs from the Opposition’s, and why we are seeking to strike a different balance from that marked out by them.

Bob Stewart: The Minister used the word “routinely”. Does he mean that this is something that does not normally happen, but could?

James Brokenshire: To be clear, when I say “routinely” I am talking about powers routinely available under the TPIM Bill, accepting that there is a draft Bill that we tabled last week, and the exceptional circumstances when those powers may be available, which we discussed earlier today. Of course, we will be able to use the robust powers in this Bill to disrupt an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity by, for example, requiring them to reside and stay overnight at a particular address in their locality, so that they can be easily monitored;
	requiring them to abide by other restrictions on their movements overnight; banning them from areas or places where they might meet extremist associates or conduct terrorism-related activities; prohibiting their association with individuals of concern and requiring prior notice of association with other individuals; requiring them to report regularly to a police station and to co-operate with electronic tagging; restricting and monitoring their financial activities; and limiting their communications to a small number of approved devices.
	That is why I say clearly that the TPIM Bill provides robust measures to address the risks posed by such individuals, allied to the additional resources being provided to the police and the Security Service, and that that is the right package of measures to have in place. Indeed, as the House is aware, the director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he is content that the TPIM Bill provides an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

David Winnick: As someone who had many reservations about the previous regime and the methods that were used, I, for one, can see very little difference between what this Government are doing and what the previous Government did. At the end of the day, despite all the criticism that was made, particularly by the Liberal Democrats in the last Parliament, by and large, what happened before the election is happening again.

James Brokenshire: I ask the hon. Gentleman with all due respect please to read the Bill. He will see that there are significant and important differences that I cannot address in the two minutes remaining to me. However, we have always been clear that there may be exceptional circumstances where the measures in the Bill, together with the additional resources, may not be sufficient to manage effectively the risk we face. National security is the primary duty of any Government, and we will not put security or the public at risk. That is why we concluded, as announced by the Home Secretary in January, that there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary to seek parliamentary approval for additional, more restrictive measures. The review included a commitment that emergency legislation would be drafted, and that is what we tabled last week.
	In a free society, we must challenge ourselves to fight terrorism using a targeted set of powers, safeguarding our hard-won civil liberties and prosecuting terrorists wherever possible. However, we must also ensure that those powers are sufficiently robust to meet the threats we face and sufficiently flexible to protect the public in changing circumstances, including in exceptional circumstances. I believe that the Government’s approach to this difficult issue is the right one and—I come back to balance being the essence—does strike the proper balance in giving us that right mix of disruption and ensuring protection for civil liberties. I am sorry that the Opposition do not appear—
	Debate interrupted  (Programme Order, 7 June).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:

Ayes 213, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 12
	 — 
	Variation of measures

Amendment made: 9,page7,line16, at end insert—
	‘(3A) An application under subsection (2) must be made in writing.
	(3B) The Secretary of State may by notice request the provision, within such period of time as the notice may specify, of further information from the individual in connection with an application under subsection (2).
	(3C) The Secretary of State is not required to consider an application further unless any information requested under subsection (3B) is provided in accordance with the notice mentioned in that subsection.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 13
	 — 
	Revocation and revival of TPIM notices

Amendment made: 10,page8,line3, after ‘notice”)’ insert ‘at any time’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 19
	 — 
	Reports on exercise of powers under Act

Amendment made: 11,page11,line41, at end insert—
	‘(4) Subject to subsection (5), this section does not require a report to be made in relation to any time which falls after the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers have expired or been repealed under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers), except for the period of 28 days referred to in section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers: supplementary provision)(2).
	(5) If the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers are revived under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers)—
	(a) the reference in subsection (1)(a) above to the month in which this Act is passed is to be read as a reference to the month in which the revival takes effect; and
	(b) this section applies accordingly.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 20
	 — 
	Reviews of operation of Act

Amendments made: 12,page12,line12, leave out from beginning to ‘before’ in line 13 and insert
	‘On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it’.
	Amendment 13,page12,line17, at end insert—
	‘(7) Subject to subsection (8), this section does not require a review to be carried out in relation to any time which falls after the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers have expired or been repealed under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers), except for the period of 28 days referred to in section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers: supplementary provision)(2).
	(8) If the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers are revived under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers), the independent reviewer must carry out a review of the operation of this Act in respect of—
	(a) the period which—
	(i) begins when the revival takes effect, and
	(ii) ends with the end of the calendar year in which the revival takes effect; and
	(b) each subsequent calendar year.
	(9) In such a case, this section and the other provisions of this Act apply as if references to a review under subsection (2) were references to a review under subsection (8).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 21
	 — 
	Offence

Amendments made: 14,page12,line31, after ‘conviction’ insert
	‘in England and Wales or Northern Ireland’.
	Amendment 15,page12,line32, at end insert—
	‘(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 27
	 — 
	short title, commencement and extent

Amendment proposed: 20,page15,line41, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert
	‘will come into force the day after the Home Secretary reports to Parliament to confirm that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) below have been complied with—
	(a) no later than one month after the day on which this Act is passed, the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism will produce a report to the Home Secretary detailing the additional required resources (“required resources”) that will be needed to manage the increased risks arising from the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the passing of this Act;
	(b) no later than two months after the day on which this Act is passed the Home Secretary will agree with the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism the required resources under paragraph (a) and the timetable for such required resources becoming deployable for use in implementing and managing measures relating to TPIM notices;
	(c) this Act cannot come into force until the required resources as agreed under paragraph (b) above are made available and ready for deployment.’.—(Shabana Mahmood.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 210, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Terrorism prevention and investigation measures

Amendments made: 16,page16,line7, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State may impose restrictions on the individual in relation to the residence in which the individual resides.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, in particular, impose any of the following—
	(a) a requirement to reside at a specified residence;
	(b) a requirement to give notice to the Secretary of State of the identity of any other individuals who reside (or will reside) at the specified residence;
	(c) a requirement, applicable overnight between such hours as are specified, to remain at the specified residence.’.
	Amendment 17,page16,line30, after ‘locality’ insert ‘in the United Kingdom’.
	Amendment 18,page17,line3, leave out sub-paragraphs (7) to (9) and insert—
	‘(7) A requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(c) must include provision to enable the individual to apply for the permission of the Secretary of State to be away from the specified residence, for the whole or part of any applicable period, on one or more occasions.
	(8) The Secretary of State may grant such permission subject to either or both of the following conditions—
	(a) the condition that the individual remains overnight at other agreed premises between such hours as the Secretary of State may require;
	(b) the condition that the individual complies with such other restrictions in relation to the individual’s movements whist away from the specified residence as are so required.
	(9) “Agreed premises” are premises in the United Kingdom which are agreed by the Secretary of State and the individual.
	(10) Sub-paragraph (8) is not to be read as limiting—
	(a) the generality of sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 13 (power to impose conditions when granting permission), or
	(b) the power to impose further conditions under that sub-paragraph in connection with permission granted by virtue of sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph.
	(11) In sub-paragraph (7) “applicable period” means a period for which the individual is required to remain at the specified residence by virtue of a requirement of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(c).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Proceedings relating to terrorism prevention and investigation measures

Amendment made: 19,page30,line19, leave out ‘56’ and insert ‘56(1), (2) and (4)’.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Third Reading

James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I would like to begin by thanking the right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee. I can genuinely say that it was one of the best Public Bill Committees that I have been involved in. The Bill underwent tough and detailed scrutiny. There was active participation and there were excellent contributions from both sides. I am sure Members who sat on the Committee will agree that it was lively and robust, but good natured. That is when Parliament excels and does its job properly. The Public Bill Committee certainly did that.
	The Committee benefited from the considerable knowledge and expertise of several Members including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I am grateful for the contributions of those Members and other Members of the Committee to this debate. I also thank the Chairmen of the Committee and the officials, Officers and staff of the House who enabled the Committee’s work to take place. We have had a full and detailed discussion of this important piece of legislation on Report, with many excellent contributions from all parts of the House.
	We have made it clear from the outset that we are committed to prosecuting and deporting terrorists wherever possible and that our starting point will always be that terrorists should be behind bars. I know that that is the position of everyone in the House. We recognise, however, that there are likely, for the foreseeable future, to be a small number of individuals who we believe are involved in terrorism but whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport. The purpose of the Bill is to put in place the measures needed to deal with them.
	The Government have thought long and hard about what legislation is needed. We conducted a comprehensive and detailed review of all the key counter-terrorism powers, including control orders. As a result of that review, we concluded that control orders were not properly targeted and not entirely effective, and that they should be replaced with the system of prevention and investigation measures that is set out in the Bill.
	The Bill includes all the measures that we believe are necessary to deal with those we cannot prosecute or deport, including an overnight residence requirement; a travel measure allowing the banning of overseas travel without permission; measures restricting individuals from entering particular areas or places; an electronic communications device measure that will restrict the individual’s ability to use communications devices; and a financial services measure that will allow individuals to be limited to only one bank account, for which they will have to provide statements. The transfer of money and goods overseas without prior permission could also be prohibited.
	The Bill also includes an association measure, under which a list of prohibited associates would be provided to the individual in advance, with the possibility that advance notice might be required for meeting other individuals; a reporting measure that would require the individual to report to a particular police station at a particular time; and a monitoring measure that would require the individual to co-operate with arrangements, including electronic tagging, to monitor their movements, communications, and other activities.
	The Bill includes additional safeguards, including an increase in the threshold for the imposition of a TPIM notice from reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism-related activity to reasonable belief, and a two-year overall time limit for a TPIM notice. We believe that TPIMs, together with the significant extra resources that are being given to the police and Security Service for covert investigation, strike the right balance between robust measures to protect the public and the protection of civil liberties.
	I do not intend to go over the issues that we discussed in detail on Report, but I wish to say something about the draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which we published for pre-legislative scrutiny on 1 September. Some have claimed that publishing it means that the Government have made some sort of U-turn, and that we are trying to reintroduce more stringent powers through the back door. That is absolutely not the case.
	The review of counter-terrorism and security powers that was announced on 26 January made it clear that additional restrictive measures may be required in exceptional circumstances, and that we would produce draft legislation to cover such a situation. That is exactly what we have done. We do not believe it is necessary to have those additional measures in the current Bill, and we sincerely hope that they will never be required, but we think it is right to have the draft legislation available should there be exceptional circumstances that require it, and that Parliament should have the chance to consider it in detail now.
	The Government believe that the approach that the Bill sets out is the right one. It protects the public and civil liberties, it is both robust and fair and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I join the Minister in commending those who have participated in the debates both in Committee and in the House today. This debate has been serious and important, and we have heard considerable expertise from all parts of the House in the discussions that have taken place.
	Counter-terror policies are extremely important. They are vital to public safety, so our approach is, wherever possible, to seek to support the Government in their counter-terror policy. However, tonight we cannot. We cannot vote for the Bill because we do not believe it is the right thing to do for our national security. We do not take that decision lightly, but we are afraid that the Government are taking unnecessary risks with national security and public safety by introducing the Bill, and we do not believe that Parliament should support that approach tonight.
	Control orders are not desirable but, sadly, they are needed. That is why they were introduced. However, the Bill, in its response to control orders, raises some serious problems: it weakens counter-terror protection in important ways; it weakens the safeguards—the checks and balances—that are needed to prevent abuse; it does not live up to the promises that were made about it; and it creates a shambolic legislative process and legal framework that will make it harder, not easier, for the police and the security services to do their job and keep us safe.
	From the start, concerns were raised that the Bill was simply a fudge. Control orders are being replaced with something very similar. Curfews are being replaced with overnight residence requirements, and restrictions on movement and communications are being replaced with prescriptions on movement and communications. However, in key areas, the Bill weakens the powers of the Home Secretary to deal with very difficult cases.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) set out in Committee a series of our concerns and tabled amendments. Today we heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) set out his concerns and very powerfully speak to amendments on additional measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) spoke to amendments on relocation, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) spoke of specific Opposition security concerns. That is particularly important in Olympic year.
	I shall focus particularly on our concerns about relocation—they were discussed on Report, but they are fundamental on Third Reading. In some cases, the courts, the security services and this Home Secretary have agreed that the power to relocate someone to prevent terrorist activity is needed and justified. In May this year, just four months ago, the Home Secretary argued in the case of CD that he needed to be removed from Greater London to protect the public from a terrorist attack. The judge said:
	“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist attack.”
	That was just four months ago, but now the Home Secretary believes that those powers are not needed. What has really changed since May?
	In July of this year, just two months ago, the Home Secretary said in the case of BM that relocation outside London was “fundamental” to preventing terrorist activity. In that case, BM admitted that he was committed to terrorism. The Home Secretary now believes that those powers are not needed. Again, what has really changed since July?
	Ministers claim that they will put more surveillance in place, but the Met expert on this, when giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee, said:
	“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.]
	It is simply not credible that the security environment has changed so substantially in the past two or four months that the powers were needed then but are not needed now. Are the Government really telling us—in Olympic year, of all years—that the powers are less needed in the coming year than they were last year, when this Home Secretary has felt that she needed to use them five times?
	Ministers have conceded that the powers could be needed, but they are promising only emergency legislation to solve the problem. However, that is a deeply disorderly and shambolic response. It is not fair on the police or security services—or, ultimately, on the public—to say, as the Minister has today, that the Government cannot tell us in what circumstances the emergency legislation will be passed. When pressed, he suggested that it might be passed in the case of multiple threats or in the wake of a terrorist attack, but neither circumstance applied in the cases of CD or BM, when the Home Secretary decided that the powers to relocate were needed.
	Ministers know that it is hard to predict how long primary legislation will take, even when there is an imminent threat. The Joint Committee on the emergency legislation, which the Home Secretary set up, concluded that it was a flawed response to difficult counter-terror situations. That is not the way to set a stable framework for our security services to operate, and removing powers in one Bill and promising to reinstate them in unspecified circumstances is a chaotic way to treat Parliament.
	While the Government are weakening the counter-terror powers, however, they are at the same time weakening the safeguards, the checks and balances and the parliamentary oversight. Our view is that we need strong powers but also strong checks and balances, so the Government are wrong to remove the annual vote and recourse to Parliament. These powers should be treated as exceptional, not routine. If Parliament is prepared for such powers to be used, as I believe it should be, it should also be prepared and required to reflect on those exceptional powers each year, rather than waiting until 2017. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats should reflect carefully on what they have really achieved in this process, because if this emergency legislation is passed, not only will we be back where we started—round the Houses, through two new laws and back again—but we will have restored all the same security powers, but with fewer checks and balances in place than we had when we started with control orders.
	Instead of amending or withdrawing the Bill in the face of these problems, the Government have tied themselves in knots because they are still in thrall to their irresponsible pre-election promises. Legislation that began as a political fudge now looks more like treacle. This is not a responsible approach to national security, and nor is it a responsible approach to Parliament. I hope that the decisions that the Home Secretary and the House are taking tonight
	do not prove dangerous, but on the basis of the evidence and expert advice that we have, the Opposition do not believe that it is right to take the risk. We will not be supporting the Bill on Third Reading tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There are five Members seeking to catch my eye. I know that they are perfectly capable of doing the arithmetic for themselves.

Richard Fuller: Unlike the shadow Home Secretary, many of us regard this as a lost opportunity to put behind us legislation that is a scar on our constitutional and judicial structures. References have been made to 9/11, which we will be remembering this Sunday. I was in New York on that day, and the memory is still visceral. The event has unleashed a decade of sometimes good, sometimes poorly thought through legislative responses to real and apparent and sometimes not-so-real threats. Over the years, there has been growing opposition to some of those more extreme measures—the push for 90 days’ detention without trial, the preamble to the Iraq war, with the promotion of non-plots, such as the ricin plot, and the sexing up of dossiers as a basis for our going to war, and of course the control orders. These are all part of an approach to the control of terror that says there is never enough doubt.
	This is not a point of balance. We need to have a balance for the rights of all people in this country, and one of the most sacred rights is the right to a free and fair trial. That opportunity has been lost today, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done her best to have a thorough and meaningful review of the measures that the Government consider appropriate for the times. This is not a mere nod-through of legislation. The debate has been robust.

Hazel Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Fuller: Very briefly, yes.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he does not have much time. These are obviously incredibly difficult issues for anybody to determine. What would he do with the handful of people for whom prosecution is not an effective route—because of the need to safeguard intelligence—and who cannot be deported or taken through the criminal justice system, but who pose a significant threat to the safety of the decent, law-abiding people in our country?

Richard Fuller: That is an interesting challenge. I will be brief. I simply would not accept the premise that we cannot take them through the criminal justice system. The whole thrust of my perspective is that we should always seek to do that. That is what I would try to persuade Governments of all hues to do. When people, of any hue, get to the Front Bench, they always have access to more information than the rest of us. It is hard for the Executive branch ever to give up counter-terrorism powers, because they would face the sort of challenge that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench this evening—that perhaps there is some risk or that someone will be caught out as a result of the changes. However, it was always a risk that something could go wrong, even under control orders. The reason it is
	wrong to give such powers exclusively to the Executive and why they should rightly be in the hands of the judiciary is that the judiciary can make a fair, non-political response to the matters of fact before it.
	However, that opportunity has been lost. We shall again have to go through secret evidence, secret hearings, special advocates and no access for the suspect to the evidence against them. I trust our Home Secretary in her review, as many other hon. Members have said they do. We trust that she has done this for balance, and we hope that she is right. However, let me end with a quotation by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, which has been strongest in its opposition to the legislation:
	“But under that Act”—
	the Bail Act 1976—
	“you are heading for a charge…It may be a long process…but at least you can stand outside the Old Bailey saying, ‘Justice has been done’…The problem with these administrative, shadowy, quasi-judicial systems is that they potentially go on for ever and you never know why.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 50, Q137.]
	We will put this Bill to a vote this evening, and I am sure that the Government will succeed. We will review the position again in five years and hopefully lose this part of our legislation.

Paul Goggins: I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In return, let me say that whatever differences we have had—and we have had a few, in Committee and again today—he has been courteous, generous, thoughtful and constructive throughout. I thank him for that. Indeed, it is quite ironic that Opposition Members keep arguing that he and the Home Secretary should be trusted more. It is Members on the Government Benches who do not seem to want to do that.
	When the Bill was first published and when we debated it on Second Reading, some commentators described it as “control orders lite”. Many comments were made to that effect and, indeed, on close examination much of the wording in the Bill appears—shall we say?—to be very similar to the wording of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. However, it has become absolutely clear in our debates that there are substantial differences between us in relation to the two-year limit, relocation, which has been debated again today, access to telephones and crucially—this is increasingly important—the timing of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions. We in the Opposition have tried through amendments to make constructive suggestions.
	Let me say that party advantage in this case is cast aside, and I know that the Minister understands and believes that. This is about protecting the public: that is the only thing that motivates me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to get the legislation right. However, I now fear that the Government are in the worst of all places, because in publishing the detailed draft legislation last week they conceded that the provisions in the Bill that we are now debating are not sufficient in certain circumstances. There may be circumstances where the enhanced powers would be required, yet because primary legislation would be required to bring them into force, the hands of the Home Secretary are tied. Time is crucial, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would certainly want to give the Home Secretary those powers,
	so that she can use them when she judges that to be appropriate. I hope that further consideration in the other place will lead to at least some changes, so that the Home Secretary is empowered to protect the nation rather than having her hands tied behind her back.
	I would caution hon. Members on pre-legislative scrutiny, because, as I told the Minister earlier, I was on the Committee that considered the draft legislation for pre-charge detention. That Committee came to a unanimous view—that such legislation is unsatisfactory and unreliable —but apart from one concession, I do not think that it found a listening ear among Ministers.
	Let me finish. I have paid tribute to the way in which the Minister has conducted these debates, but surely he must find it at least ironic, if nothing else, that two days after we completed consideration of the detail of the Bill in Committee the Home Secretary wrote to the court in the case of BM to say that a relocation condition was essential. Thank goodness she was successful and the judge found in her favour. Relocation may be necessary on occasions; it should be in the Bill, as should the other measures I have mentioned.

Julian Huppert: On Second Reading, I said that I supported clause 1 wholeheartedly, but that I had reservations about clauses 2 onwards. I feel exactly the same now. We still have the same problems in that Executive power is being used and that it is outside our legal system. I wholeheartedly disagree with the approach being taken by the Opposition. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), has said, astonishingly:
	“Unfortunately, there are times when people have to be outside the legal framework.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 57.]
	I find that absolutely horrific. It is possible to do all this within a legal framework, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) has said. In Committee, I tabled amendments on police bail. I proposed a different model on Report, but unfortunately we did not have an opportunity to discuss it. They were slightly different models—the details were different—but they showed that there is a way forward, and that we can find a normal, legal way of pursuing this process.
	I do not welcome TPIMs—I certainly do not welcome enhanced TPIMs—but they are a step forward. I thank the Government for taking that step. It is rare for me to quote the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who on Second Reading used an interesting phrase on which hon. Members might wish to reflect. He argued:
	“The coalition is simply giving in to Lib-Dem pressure for this Bill to comply with the Human Rights Act”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]
	I am delighted to agree with him on this occasion, although I think that Ministers are actually a bit more sympathetic than he gave them credit for.
	The Bill is an improvement. We have already heard Opposition Members describe the benefits that it will bring compared with control orders. Relocation will go. There will be no more internal exile, although there will be some judicial oversight. That move was opposed by the Opposition—or, at least, by the majority of Labour Members; there were some honourable exceptions. Curfews are over, but again that move was opposed by the
	Opposition. The proposals involve time limits. Nobody will be able to be held indefinitely; there will be a two-year maximum. Again, the Opposition tabled amendments to enable people to be held for longer. People will have regulated access to phones and computers, but again that was opposed by Labour. Those measures will allow people who have not been convicted of any offence to have a semblance of normal life. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that Labour made errors over civil liberties, but it is clear that his party has not listened to him and has not learned from its mistakes.
	The Bill represents a small step forward, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. The addition of the sunset clause makes it a step forward that I am willing to take, and I am delighted—not overjoyed; that would be overstating it—that we can take steps towards improving our civil liberties. I will vote for the Bill tonight.

Pat McFadden: I believe that the Bill is based on a fundamentally mistaken premise—that liberty in our country was undermined by laws passed by the previous Labour Government in their efforts to protect the public and to combat terrorism. We have heard the Minister advance that argument many times during the debate. It is not, however, the laws passed by the last Labour Government that threaten liberty. Liberty is threatened by the ideology that fed the bombers of the London underground, by the acts that they took part in, by plots including those of the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber, as well as by other plots that have mercifully either not worked or been foiled before they reached fruition.
	Both parties in the coalition have in different degrees shared in that fundamentally mistaken premise, and they have now brought it into the Government as the foundation for this Bill. I wonder whether, if we were talking about this in a year or two’s time, the Government would still introduce such a Bill. I genuinely do not know the answer to that. What we have here is a mistaken premise giving us wrong policy that will lead to increased risk for the public. The Bill will give new rights to terrorist suspects. It will allow them freedom of movement. It will grant them access to mobile phones and the internet. It will also put a two-year time limit on even the weakened provisions that TPIMs represent.

Tobias Ellwood: I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman’s point that any form of legislation could prevent a terrorist attack. If someone is convinced that that is what they want to do, wherever they are based in the UK and however they communicate, and whether they target the Olympics or somewhere else, they will conduct that attack, and possibly kill themselves as well. No legislation that we create in this House can prevent that. It is wrong to mislead the House and to suggest that we can somehow over-legislate or protect ourselves by what we do here. We cannot do that.

Pat McFadden: If that is what the hon. Gentleman believes, he should vote against the Bill because the Minister is pretending that this offers some measure of protection. These measures not only put the public at increased risk, but put the police and security services
	under increased pressure at the very time that their budgets are being cut. They mean less control and more surveillance. Surveillance itself compromises liberty, but does so simply in a more expensive and riskier way than do some of the extra powers that the Government have chosen to reject.
	To cap it all, in recent days we have seen the spectacle of the Government taking out an insurance policy against their own Bill by publishing draft emergency legislation but then refusing to add the powers to this Bill. The Government have failed utterly in today’s debate to specify the circumstances under which that insurance policy will be used. It is hard to escape the conclusion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) eloquently reached in her speech—that trade-offs within the coalition have shaped this policy. That is not good enough. We should not compromise the safety of our citizens on that basis. I echo the hope and prayer of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that none of the terrorist suspects who are granted increased freedoms under the Bill use them to kill innocent people. I have to say in all sincerity that if they do, the public will not forgive the Ministers or the Government who have passed this measure tonight.

Bob Stewart: There is little time, so I shall try to put my speech in bullet point form. I have no problem with TPIMs being called “control orders lite”. I believe we should think of evolution in security and I certainly think that we should look at experience.
	I do not think terrorists will be able to get away with terrorist acts when they are under investigation. I used to watch them in Northern Ireland, but they could not do anything once we had them under proper surveillance. If they are really innocent, they can always fully co-operate with the Government and get off a TPIM, control order or whatever as soon as possible.
	The threat comes from unknown people. We all know that, as all these attacks have come from people whom the security services have not been able to identify.
	I had a big problem with relocation, but I was reassured by what the Minister said about enhanced TPIMs—that we could do something about the matter quite quickly. I do not think that we have by any means reached a definitive solution as yet. We are in an evolutionary process. No one likes control orders, TPIMs or anything like them, but we do not have any choice.
	The threat will change over time and our reaction to it will have to change over time. We will revisit many times in future the problem of what to do with people who want to destroy our people.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 297, Noes 221.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft International Renewable Energy Agency (Legal Capacities) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)
	Question agreed to.

WASTE AND RECYCLING (SPELTHORNE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am especially pleased to address this matter under your direction, Mr Speaker, as it is very important for my constituents. The issue that the debate will focus on is localism—the localism philosophy, as it were—and more specifically the question of the extent to which county councils in a two-tier system should be allowed to overrule the will of borough councils and a significant degree of popular opinion within a particular borough.
	As many Members will know, I am the Member of Parliament for a borough: the borough of Spelthorne. It is coterminous with the parliamentary constituency, which is a rare thing in our House of Commons. I am therefore very grateful to the Minister for making time to respond to some of the issues I wish to raise. I hope he can elucidate some of the Government’s ideas about localism, with particular regard to waste disposal and recycling policy.
	A waste and recycling centre is to be built in the south-east of my constituency, in the midst of two densely populated residential areas: Upper Halliford and Charlton village. More than 41,000 people live within a two-mile radius of the proposed site. Many issues have been raised in the debate, with those on one side of it saying that the technology is essential. However, it is my job as the Member of Parliament to articulate some of the concerns that many of my constituents have about the proposed facility.
	A community recycling centre and a waste transfer facility already occupy part of the site, on which waste has been managed since the late 1940s. The new development, planned by SITA, would involve the construction of an additional anaerobic digestion plant to dispose of Surrey’s food waste. Most worryingly to many constituents, it would impose on the constituency a gasification chamber for the treatment of household waste. This would triple the size of the existing 4.5 hectare facility and would, most people agree, consume what is left of the adjoining green belt.
	People across the constituency and across the political divide have expressed considerable dismay at this proposal, and a great deal of community spirit and co-operation has been shown in opposition to it. People have put aside political allegiances and have come together to oppose the county council’s proposal. A dedicated group of residents from in and around Charlton and Halliford have set up “Spelthorne against the Eco Park”, and I am very interested in their arguments and wish to ventilate some of their concerns. Many other people from residents associations in neighbouring towns such as Sunbury, Shepperton and Kempton have campaigned against these developments.
	Spelthorne borough council, which is in charge of Spelthorne, has responded to people’s concerns, as opposed to Surrey county council, which is one tier above it. The borough council voted unanimously to reject SITA’s plans on 26 January. In response to the vote, Surrey county council chose to ignore a large measure of residential opinion and went ahead and approved the planning application. It peddled a story that this development is the best waste solution for Surrey. Other
	people object to this, and I want to raise some of those objections on the Floor of the House, which is where they should be heard.
	Indeed, Surrey county council insists that the gasification chamber would facilitate treatment of waste in a more sustainable and eco-friendly way than the mere landfill site that currently exists. But it is difficult to see how this change to gasification would be an improvement, given that gasifiers simply burn black bag waste without first separating the recyclables. This move would not improve Surrey’s waste disposal facilities. There are severe and important concerns about the fact that it could be dangerous and could endanger the people who live near the gasification site.
	Owing to the volatile nature of the gases used, the very process of gasification is risky. The Sterecycle explosion in Rotherham reminds everyone why gasifiers and facilities that produce modern electricity from waste plants are, as a rule, located in places away from populations. As people are well aware, and as I have said earlier in this speech, this proposed development would be located right in the heart of a highly densely populated area. People contend that the proposal to locate a large chemical process plant—that is what this would mean—in a public community recycling centre the development is putting residents’ lives at risk. If it is not putting their lives at risk, it is certainly potentially dangerous, given the possibility of explosion.
	In isolated locations with severe transport problems, where waste cannot be moved with much ease, gasification might be the best, if not the only, solution. That is the case, for example, in the Austrian valleys, where gasifiers were pioneered. I know that our winter weather has been more severe in recent years than in the past and that we are facing alpine conditions almost every year, but to suggest that the Thames valley is, in any way, like the Austrian Alps in terms of weather severity stretches the definition of “a simile” too far. I am sure that everyone would agree that the Thames valley is not like the Carpathian mountains. The Thames valley benefits from a good transport network and far more environmentally friendly and sustainable waste solutions could be used there—in particular, integrated energy recovery from waste schemes. We do not have to go down this gasifier route. That is the borough council’s argument and it enjoys a lot of support in my constituency.
	Why would anyone want to build this gasifier and put it in the middle of a highly densely populated area? There is a simple reason; it boils down to money. The Government are offering generous financial subsidies in the form of renewables obligation certificates for electricity recovered by gasification. That was instigated under the previous Government in 2003 to support small community projects in relatively isolated locations, such as those I have described. It was never envisaged for the south-east, Thames valley area, to which it is being sought to apply. In my constituency, such an approach is inappropriate. The Sustainable Development Commission has recommended that only high-efficiency energy from waste plants should typically receive Government support.
	The approach is inappropriate is because this subsidy, like a lot of subsidies in general, has been applied in a blunderbuss fashion. No discrimination is applied; no particular sensitivity is shown to the location. As I have tried to stress, the location is of paramount importance. Of course a gasifier would make sense in a relatively
	isolated community, for example, in a mountainous region, where transferring waste is particularly difficult. My contention, and that of many of my constituents, is that it is simply inappropriate to build such a facility in the midst of a highly densely populated area.
	Bearing in mind the size of the development site in question, the phenomenon of the subsidy being applied without any discrimination makes no sense. Gasification is simply a way in which SITA can obtain maximum profit. The company receives, I believe, a £100 bonus for every megawatt of electricity it generates through gasification on top of the £30 value to the grid. Without subsidies and that perverse Government incentive, construction of the gasification plant would, in the eyes of many people, make absolutely no financial sense because the generation of electricity through that means is far too low.
	We have here the prospect of a gasifier being built in a densely populated area, largely for financial incentives. SITA, which is content to burn recyclables for profit, will maximise the Government’s environmental subsidies and would stand to gain while many people in the local community feel that they would lose out. I do not believe that that was the intention of the then Government when they proposed subsidies for gasification, but subsequent developments do not tally with current environmental policy or chime well with the Government’s stated, well-publicised and well-known localism agenda.
	Only last year, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change promised that this Government would only
	“support modern energy generation from waste where local communities want it and where it makes good environmental sense”—[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 977.]
	whereas his colleague, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has talked eloquently and consistently about devolving power to community groups and what might be termed the grass roots—the lowest level of the participatory democracy.
	If the Government are to honour their commitment to localism and to do what they set out to do and what they preach, surely when a borough council advocates one idea and a county council advocates the diametric opposite the choice should be clear. Under the principles of localism that choice should be in favour of the borough council. The borough council has repeatedly articulated the arguments I have outlined today and many people believe that Surrey county council should have listened to its opposition to SITA and perhaps supported it. As everyone knows, the county council is at a higher level than the borough council so it seems unclear to me and many of my constituents where the localism agenda fits in. If the county council is to get its way, where does localism find its voice?
	The proposal now sits on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In the next few days, he will choose whether to refuse it, call it in for his determination or allow it. I hope this debate and some of the concerns that I have articulated on behalf of my constituents will be heeded and will have some tiny margin of influence on his decision. I hope that his decision will reflect some of the issues I have raised and perhaps, after he has
	looked at the debate and at some of the representations made by my constituents and by the borough I represent, he will determine that SITA’s application is wholly inappropriate.

Bob Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing the debate on a topic that I know is of concern to him and his constituents. It is a matter of real significance and he has done them a service in the way in which he has put their case and their concerns. As he has pointed out, this relates to a proposed waste and recycling centre in his constituency, which is within the metropolitan green belt. The current application is, as he said, for a facility to deal with 40,000 tonnes of food waste and 60,000 tonnes of household rubbish a year. In light of his careful opening of the facts, I need not repeat some of the factual detail of the application. It is worth saying that waste activities have taken place on the site since the 1940s. It is because the site lies within the metropolitan green belt that the authority has formally referred the application to the Secretary of State under 2009 consultation regulations regarding green belt development.
	The fact that the proposal is before the Secretary of State for determination on whether call-in is appropriate means that I have to be careful in what I can say. The Secretary of State will take a decision not on the merits or otherwise of the application, but only on whether it is appropriate for him to call it in so that he can take a decision as opposed to leaving the decision to the local waste planning authority. As that is a quasi-judicial decision, I, as the Minister speaking on his behalf, have to be careful, as is normal in these cases, not to say anything in the debate that might prejudice or give the appearance of prejudicing that quasi-judicial decision on whether to call in the application. I hope, therefore that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot go into some of the detail that he has set out in relation either to the application or to some of the arguments regarding the merits of various processes and technologies.
	I can, however, help him and his constituents by explaining the call-in process. About 475,000 planning applications are made to local authorities every year and the Secretary of State has powers, under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to require that applications be referred to him for determination rather than being determined by the local authority. In certain cases concerning green belt land, there is an automatic process of referral, as I have mentioned.
	The current policy on how the Secretary of State should exercise the call-in power was set out by the then Minister, Richard Caborn, in June 1999. Examples were given of cases that may be called in, including those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; give rise to substantial regional or national controversy; appear to conflict with national policy on important matters; or raise significant architectural and urban design issues. Other possible call-in cases are those concerning the interests of national security or foreign Governments. That is the broad policy.
	The Secretary of State also has the power under article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 to issue
	a holding direction to the local authority instructing it not to grant permission on the application without his authorisation. That is to allow him sufficient time to give the issues raised his full consideration. My officials advise me that Surrey county council, which is the planning authority for this purpose, was issued with an article 25 direction on 2 August 2011. That is the background and context.
	It is the Secretary of State’s policy, within the criteria I have outlined, to be very selective about calling in planning applications. I have already said that there are about 475,000 planning applications a year to local planning authorities, and it is worth noting that in 2010 only 13 cases were called in by the Planning Inspectorate for inquiries to be held. I hope that puts the matter into context.
	My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the Secretary of State and the officials who advise him are currently considering the application and have received 20 individual representations to call the application in. Their assessment will consider whether the planning application itself or the issues raised by concerned parties, such as those who have written in and whose concerns have been articulated by my hon. Friend, justify the Secretary of State’s intervention based on the call-in policy that I have just set out. It will then be for Secretary of State or one of the Ministers in the Department acting on his behalf to determine whether or not to intervene in the matter. In doing that, the Secretary of State will have regard to the call-in policy and to national policy generally in relation to such matters.
	I understand the concerns articulated by my hon. Friend. I am sure he will appreciate that applications for waste facilities are never popular, and almost invariably give rise to local objections, concerns and debate. Such facilities are an essential part of the infrastructure necessary to make our towns and cities function properly. They often provide a service beyond the immediate neighbourhood in which they are situated, so there is a balance involved.
	As I know my hon. Friend is aware, policy responsibility for waste issues involves several parts of Government, but responsibility for the planning part of the process rests with my Department. It is understandable, therefore, that concerns are raised. The planning system plays a critical role in delivering the Government’s targets on waste in a sustainable way, and we are committed to replacing the previously adversarial system that we have had in planning with one in which communities work together as a norm.
	The overall policy objective is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource where possible. We remain committed to that. Equally, the Government remain committed to protecting the green belt and maintaining the key policy that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In that balancing process, one must bear in mind that current national planning policy says that planning authorities should recognise that the locational needs of some types of waste management facilities, together with the wider environmental and economic benefits that I mentioned, are material considerations that should be given weight in determining whether proposals should be given planning permission.
	Local authorities also have a national and a European duty to prepare and deliver waste management and planning strategies in a way that enables communities
	to take more responsibility for their waste. They also need to prepare and deliver planning strategies that protect the green belt, as well as being consistent with other planning policies. It is for local authorities to consider all national policies and local opinions and to produce plans which represent the best solution for their areas. It is important that in doing so, local authorities are required to consult communities fully when preparing their strategies.
	As my hon. Friend said, his constituency is part of an area that has a two-tier system of local government. In all parts of the country where there is a two-tier system of county and district or borough councils, the county council is the waste planning authority, generally because the waste arising and its disposal tend to cover a wider area than that of individual local planning authorities represented by a district or borough council. The county council is required to consult the district council on the development of its strategic plans and on individual waste applications.
	The Government recently published their plans for a new national planning policy framework, which is currently out for consultation and is due to close on 17 October. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, that draft framework does not contain specific waste policies, because national waste planning policy will be published alongside the national waste management plan for England, but local authorities preparing waste plans should have regard to policies in the framework. That includes the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which applies to waste provision, and the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient detail to justify the need for and location of waste facilities.
	Local authorities are responsible for approving or rejecting planning applications in line with their local plans, taking into account any representations that they have received, and that is how localism fits into the issue: there is the context of national policy; within that, there are statutory responsibilities that fall, as appropriate, upon county, district or borough councils as the planning authorities for particular classes of application; and we are committed to giving local elected representatives greater responsibility to make decisions within the context of that structure. Where there are disagreements or two-tier areas, it is worth bearing in mind that the Localism Bill introduces a duty to co-operate, giving local planning authorities and public bodies a requirement to engage in constructive and active dialogue on such matters.
	I hope that I have set out the context of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I assure him that I understand the strength of feeling on this and on many similar issues, and that, in deciding whether to call in the application, the Secretary of State and his officials will take into account the points that my hon. Friend and his constituents have made. We are committed to ensuring that delays in the process are kept to a minimum. I am therefore pleased to advise him that we aim to issue a decision on the matter as soon as possible, and he of course will be formally notified of the decision, once it is made, in the usual way.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.